ΞΕ 


3 ᾿5ὸ διὃ 


| 


" | 


ἩΝῈ LY 
Ζ κ Ae 
. 59 ; ¥i 
F ) Bs “4° 48 
EI ™ ᾿ ‘ Fj 
ἢ WS Η 
᾿ » - ---- = 3 
ἘΝ: <A nar 
ὃ | ΝῊ 7 3 
Wi AY 
walt) ihe 
i EX LIBRIS Wal ᾿ 
τ, 7 iL - 
Η i = - J ΗΙ ! 
ἢ ee ct Se τ =: SE ἕ 
ers χὰ» ἘΠ 
EEE 


ee 


eS eee 
op 
Aly (PE 


THE TEXT AND CANON 
Of THE 


NEW TESTAMENT 


STUDIES IN THEOLOGY 


12mo, cloth. 75 cents net per vol. 


NOW READY 
A Critical Introduction to the New Testament 
By Artuur SAMUEL PEAKE, D.D. 
Faith and its Psychology 
By the Rev. παιαμ R. IncE, D.D. 
Philosophy and Religion 


By the Rev. Hastrncs RAsHDALL, D.Litt. (Oxon), 
D.C.L. (Durham), F.B.A. 


Revelation and Inspiration 
By the Rev. JAMEs Orr, D.D. 
Christianity and Social Questions 
By the Rev. ΑΜ CunnincHaM, D.D., F.B.A. 
Christian Thought to the Reformation | 
By Hersert B. WorKMAN, D.Litt. 
Protestant Thought Before Kant 
By A. C. McGrrrert, Ph.D., D.D. 


An Outline of the History of Christian Thought 
Since Kant 
By Epwarp CALDWELL Moore, D.D. 
The ΠΕΣΕΒΡΙΗΝ Hope: A Study in the Doctrine of 
Immortality 
By Wi11Am Apams Brown, Ph.D., D.D. 
The Theology of the Gospels 
By the Rev. James Morratt, D.D., D.Litt. 


The Text and Canon of the New Testament 
By ALEXANDER Souter, D.Litt. 
IN PREPARATION 


A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament 
By the Rev. GEoRGE BucHANAN Gray, D.D., D.Litt. 


THE TEXT AND CANON 


OF THE 


NEW TESTAMENT 


BY 


ALEXANDER SOUTER 


SOMETIME YATES PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK AND 
EXEGESIS IN MANSFIELD COLLEGE, OXFORD 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
1913 


52320 


ELIZABETH 
CONIVGI DILECTISSIMAE 
IN COMMEMORATIONEM 


ANNORVM XIII 


1899-1912 


PREFACE 


THE chief justification for the appearance of the present 
work is that a series of the comprehensiveness of ‘ Studies 
in Theology’? would not be complete without some treat- 
ment of the Text and Canon of the New Testament. There 
is a further reason in the fact that the progress made in 
these subjects is such, that every ten years or so, a brief 
treatment of them, an attempt to gather together the 
results of multitudinous books and articles, is a necessity, 
if any beyond the narrow circle of experts are to be put 
in possession of the new facts. The writer gained some 
knowledge of these facts during the eight years in which 
it was his privilege to teach those subjects in Mansfield 
College, Oxford. The preparation, also, of an up-to-date 
critical apparatus to the New Testament, which has been 
published by the Clarendon Press in conjunction with 
the ‘ Revisers’ Text’ (November 1910, and later), gave 
him some acquaintance with the materials of New Testa- 
ment textual criticism. The first part of the present book 
is intended not merely to present as briefly as possible what 
students ought to know, but also to act as an encourage- 
ment to them to take up some branch of the textual 
criticism of the New Testament. For this reason some 
repetition in the course of the work may be excused. I 
would fain allure some Churchmen from the fascinating 
pursuit of liturgiology, and some Nonconformists from the 


equally if not more fascinating pursuit of speculative 
b vii 


vii TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


theology, to the study, say, of the abundant manuscript 
materials which exist for the writing of the history of the 
Latin Bible. Why, for instance, should we still lack a 
scientific edition of the biblical commentaries of our 
countryman, the Venerable Bede? The materials exist 
in abundance and are of superlative quality. 

Some critics may find the part of the book on the Canon 
too brief. Here I have preferred to let the documents 
speak for themselves, and have presented them in greater 
number and more accurate text than the English reader 
will be able to find them elsewhere in a volume of this 
compass. That I am able to do so is partly due to the 
kindness of Mr. C. H. Turner and the Delegates of the 
Clarendon Press, who have kindly authorised the republica- 
tion of certain documents from the Journal of Theological 
Studies. For the general study of the Canon I am mostly 
beholden to the second edition of Theodor von Zahn’s 
Grundriss der Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons. 
It is a continual surprise to me that this work has not yet 
been translated into English : we have nothing to compare 
with it. Other obligations incurred in both parts of the 
book are acknowledged in their places. 

This book was more than half written before I was 
called away from Oxford to other work. I hope it may 
be in some sense regarded as a legacy to my former students 
there. 


May CorTaae, ToRPHINS, 
ABERDEENSHIRE, July 7, 1912. 


Postscript.—The ‘Damasine’ Council of 382 must now dis- 
appear from history, thanks to the epoch-making results of 
Professor E. von Dobschiitz of Breslau (see notes to Documents 


G and ἢ). 


CONTENTS 


THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


. ANCIENT TEXTS AND THEIR TRANSMISSION . ; e 
. SOURCES OF THE New TESTAMENT TEXT , ὸ é 
. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS . : : : : ὸ 4 


. THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SyYRIAC ὃ ᾿ 


THe OLpER Versions (ΕΘΟΎΡΤΙΑΝ [Copric] VERSIONS, 


GoTHIc) . 4 : : : - - ; 


vi. SECONDARY VERSIONS . i ἃ ᾿ ᾿ i ᾿ 
vil. PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS . she hittin 
vil. PrRintep EDITIONS OF THE GREEK New TEsraMENT 


IV. 


Vv. 


AND VERSIONS . A 4 ‘ ᾿ : 


. PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM, ETC. . : - = - 


. THe Fourure OvutTLtoox ὁ 3 ° ° i ‘ 
THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
. PRELIMINARY: THE IDEA AND THE WorD. ς - 


. EARLIEST CoLLecTions ΟΕ New ΤΈΒΤΑΜΕΝΤ Books . 


. THE Earuiest PERIOD FOR EXTENSIVE QUOTATION 


(170-220): tHe EaRLixst VERSIONS - - ° 
Booxs oF TEMPORARY AND LocAL CANONICITY . 


From OriIGEN TO CHRYSOSTOM IN THE East. 3 


138 


149 
160 


169 
178 
182 


TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


PAGE 


. From 250 τὸ 450 ΙΝ THE WEsT. : : . vi MGR 
. Concrt1AR DELIVERANCES . : ‘ : 1 90 
. THE REFORMATION AND LATER . : : : a bee 

SeLecTeD DocuMENTs . : ὁ . : : 90 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ὁ 5 ᾿ ς . al), Sen 


INDEX e ᾽ 3 ' e r) e . . . 249 


THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


νιν») 
Use ye 


‘ ἢ 


Δ 


CHAPTER 1 
ANCIENT TEXTS AND THEIR TRANSMISSION 


§ 1. TEXTUAL CRITICISM 


TEXTUAL criticism seeks, by the exercise of knowledge and 
trained judgment, to restore the very words of some 
original document which has perished, and survives only 
in copies complete or incomplete, accurate or inaccurate, 
ancient or modern. If we possessed the twenty-seven 
documents now composing our New Testament exactly in 
the form in which they were dictated or written by their 
original authors, there would be no textual criticism of the 
New Testament. The original documents, however, have 
long perished, and we have to make the best of the copies 
which have survived, by howsoever many removes they 
may be distant from their ultimate originals. Every fresh 
copy introduces fresh possibilities of error. We have only 
to try to copy anything ourselves to see how liable to error 
we are. Some persons are absolutely unable to copy a 
document with even reasonable accuracy, and the most 
careful copyists will discover errors made by them if they 
compare their copy afresh with the original. The same 
liability to error occurs in the reprinting of printed texts. 
For example, the earliest printed edition of the commentary 
on the Epistles of St. Paul, published under the name of 
Primasius at Lyons in 1537, was reprinted at Cologne in 
1538, and at Paris in 1543, and from this latter edition a 
reprint was made, which in its turn was the origin of the 
copy published in Migne’s Latin Patrology in the middle 
of last century. In all this long interval conscious altera- 


tion there was practically none, yet the Migne edition, 
8 


4 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [ou. 


accurate as it is considered, is wrong in scores of places 
where the earliest edition is right. 

If such things are possible in the case of printed texts 
seldom reprinted, the possibilities of error are greatly 
increased where manuscripts are concerned, because some- 
times the copyist found difficulties with his predecessor’s 
handwriting, or was unable to expand correctly contractions 
used by him. As a rule, the old copyists did their best to 
make an accurate copy of what they saw before them, and 
it is in so far as they did this that their work has real value. 
If, in addition to using their eyes, they used their brains, 
and altered what seemed to them the errors of their pre- 
decessors into what they thought these predecessors ought 
to have written, they introduce confusion into the tradition 
and add to the difficulties of the modern textual critic. As 
a matter of fact, they rarely restore the real text, even 
where they hit the right sense. On the whole, it may be 
said that this vice of ‘ correcting ’ is rare in the period to 
which the earliest surviving MSS. belong, and increasingly 
common from about the eleventh century. From these 
remarks it will be seen that the task of sane textual criticism 
is no light one. The critic must possess, in addition to a 
knowledge of the language in which the manuscripts are 
written, a familiarity with the external characteristics of 
manuscripts in all periods, their size, the material on which 
they are written, the arrangement of columns, pages, and 
so forth, with the history of handwriting in all its forms, 
with punctuation, contractions, and such like matters: in 
other words, he must be a paleographer, or acquainted 
with the results attained by paleographers. The extra- 
ordinarily extended use of photography in relation to 
manuscripts has made it possible not only to obtain 
splendid photographs of single pages, but even to repro- 
duce whole manuscripts in photographic facsimile, either 
in the size of the originals, or in a reduced size. Such 
reproductions for many purposes may take the place of the 
originals. ‘The textual critic must not, however, be content 
even with this knowledge, which will tell him what errors 


1] ANCIENT TEXTS AND THEIR TRANSMISSION 5 


might occur : he must also possess a thorough acquaintance 
with errors which actually have occurred,! and this it is 
not easy to acquire in any other way than by first-hand 
acquaintance with manuscripts. The principles of textual 
criticism will meet us later. 


§ 2. MATERIAL OF BOOKS AND STYLES OF WRITING 


Roughly speaking, we may divide the history of manu- 
scripts, as far as the New Testament student is concerned 
with them, into three periods: a papyrus period, lasting 
to the seventh century ; a vellum or parchment period, 
stretching from the end of the third to the fifteenth century ; 
and a paper period, beginning about the fourteenth century. 
The period of uncial writing, that is, of rounded capitals, 
lasts down to the tenth century, but already about the 
end of the eighth the old cursive hand, refined into a book 
hand, began the reign of minuscules. We speak of manu- 
scripts older than the end of the tenth century as old; 
those of the eleventh and twelfth centuries are of the 
middle period ; others are late. Two causes tended to the 
change from papyrus to vellum. The first was the decrease 
in the supply of the former material, but the second and 
more potent cause was the greater usefulness and durability 
of vellum. While papyrus generally bore writing only on 
one side, and being commonly in roll form was both incon- 
venient to consult and could contain only one of any of 
the longer New Testament books, vellum could bear writing 
on both sides, was in sheets, and therefore capable of being 
bound up as a modern book, and could contain the whole 
New Testament if necessary. An increase in the cost of 
vellum gave the impetus to the sale of paper, a product of 
the East, in the century or two preceding the inventing of 
printing, which took place about 1450. 

With the possible exception of such tiny writings as the 


1 A model enumeration of examples from the Latin classical writers is in 
ἐὰν hy ΕἸ. Housman’s M. Manilii A stronomicon Liber Primus (London, 1908), 
pp. liv-lix. 


6 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


Epistle to Philemon, and the Second and Third Epistles of 
St. John, which may have been written on waxed tablets 
with an iron pen or stilus, all the writings of the New 
Testament must have been written in the first instance on 
papyrus, with reed-pen (calamus) and ink, and it is of some 
interest and importance to realise their external appearance 
and character. This has become possible through the 
extensive discovery of papyrus rolls at Herculaneum in 
Italy in the eighteenth century, and particularly in Egypt 
in the nineteenth century. The nature of papyrus being 
such that a damp climate reduces it to pulp, the vast 
quantity of papyrus which must have existed in other 
countries of the Roman world has all perished, and it is 
to the action of Vesuvius on the one hand, and the dry 
climate of Egypt on the other, that we are indebted for the 
papyrus rolls that survive. The visitor to museums will 
note that the Herculanean papyrus fragments are generally 
charred, while those from Egypt are brittle, but when the 
papyrus was new it was soft and flexible. 

The papyrus plant grew in abundance in Egypt in ancient 
times, and its use as writing material was familiar at least — 
three thousand years before Christ. The inner bark of the 
shrub was cut longitudinally into thin strips which were 
laid side by side. These were crossed by other strips. The 
combined strips were pressed hard together, and the whole 
was then dried in the sun. The edges were then made 
smooth by pumice-stone, probably after the sheet had 
been rolled up, separate portions having been glued together 
with the aid of Nile water, regarded as specially suitable 
for the purpose, until the desired length was attained. 
Papyrus was sold in the stationers’ shops from six to 
eighteen inches in height, at so much a length, just as 
paper is sold by the quire to-day, and the unused part 
could be clipped off, or extra parts added as desired. The 
writing was in the first instance on the side where the 
fibres were horizontal, for the obvious reason that it was 
easier to write on that side. The custom was to write in 
very narrow columns, without separation of words, without 


1.) ANCIENT TEXTS AND THEIR TRANSMISSION 7 


accents, or breathings, and almost entirely without punctua- 
tion; these columns were sometimes numbered. In care- 
fully written manuscripts a new paragraph was shown by 
a gap in the text, and a short horizontal line in the margin 
opposite, which line written at the side (para, graphein) is 
the origin of the English word paragraph. The title of a 
book was either added at the end of the roll, or on a little 
slip containing it gummed to the top edge, or it was given 
in both places.t The roll was held in the hands in such a 
way that the left hand rolled up what had been read, while 
the right hand unrolled what was still to be read. A core 
of papyrus or another stick was used round which it was 
rolled and thus kept smooth. For practical convenience 
a roll had not to exceed a certain length, and we can see 
that St. Luke, who wrote the two longest books in the 
New Testament, crushed the utmost amount he could into 
both rolls, being doubtless possessed of much more material 
on the life and sayings of Jesus and the apostles than he 
was actually able to use in his Gospel and Acts. Rolls 
when not in use were commonly kept in cylindrical cases 
with a lid on the top, and no doubt the four rolls containing 
the four Gospels would commonly be contained in one such 
box in the earlier days of the Church. 

The narrow columns familiar to the reader of papyrus 
books were retained in the oldest vellum MSS., and as 
the leaves were generally square, each page could hold 
more than one such column, the number being determined 
by the size of the page. The number of columns per page 
probably never exceeded four, and two became very 
fashionable. In other respects, also, the customs of the 
papyri were retained. There was, in fact, no proper 
separation of words, and no fully developed use of accents 
and breathings before the ninth century, at which period 
the uncial writing was dying ; so that we may almost say 
that these facilities for reading were unknown till the days 


1 Hardly any of the slips have survived. An instance of the title at the 
foot of the final column is Ξενοφῶντος Κύρου Παιδείᾳ--α (Oxyrhynchus 
Papyri, Part iv., No. 698: London, 1904), 


8 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


of minuscule writing. Sheets of vellum, prepared from the 
skin of the sheep, antelope, and other animals, were so 
arranged that hair side was put next hair side and flesh side 
next flesh side. The number of such, folded together to 
form a sheet in the technical sense, varied considerably in 
the Greek world—four, five, and six, for example, being 
found, thus making eight, ten, and twelve leaves, or 
sixteen, twenty, and twenty-four pages respectively. In 
the Latin world the arrangement of four sheets laid one 
above the other and folded across the middle to form 
eight leaves or sixteen pages, and called a quaternio (hence, 
English ‘ quire’), is so regular, that exceptions can nearly 
always be explained as due either to some accident, or to 
the fact that a quaternion was insufficient, or more than 
sufficient, to contain the portion of writing desired. These 
sheets were commonly numbered, and served out one by 
one to the scribe: leaves were not commonly numbered 
till a very late period, say the fifteenth century, and pages 
were not numbered till the sixteenth—in fact, till the age 
of printed books was well begun. It is obvious that this 
custom of numbering the sheets is very convenient for the 
modern investigator, as it enables him to calculate the 
number of leaves lost in a MS., and thus to estimate what 
amount of text is lacking ; or, contrariwise, if he knows the 
length of the text, he can calculate how much space the 
missing part would require. The number of lines per page 
in a carefully written MS. remains constant, and care was 
taken, by means of a vertical row of prickings and the use 
of a hard point for the drawing of lines, to keep them 
straight and of equallength. Books were not always bound, 
but when this was done, wooden boards were employed. 
As time goes on, the use of contractions in writing becomes 
in general more and more complicated, and a work in 
consequence takes up less and less space. In earlier days 
a complete vellum Bible in one volume is an excessive 
rarity, but in the thirteenth century thousands of them 


were produced in single volumes of comparatively small 
bulk. 


LJ ANCIENT TEXTS AND THEIR TRANSMISSION 9 


The paper manuscripts vary in nothing but material 
from the later vellum manuscripts, and we need not dwell 
on them, as they are of little consequence for our purpose. 
The transition from them to printed books was an easy one, 
and i: is sometimes a little difficult to tell at first sight 
whether a book is a late MS. or an incunabulum. 

Scribes (librarit, antiquariz), at least in the West, were a 
professional class down to the sixth century 4.D., till which 
time Rome remained the centre of the book trade. From 
that time manuscripts were commonly produced in monas- 
teries throughout Western Europe, especially in those of 
the Benedictine Order, which have practically preserved 
all we have got of Latin literature, both Christian and non- 
Christian. Among the more beautiful products of the 
ancient scriptoria the purple MSS. deserve mention. The 
vellum was first stained with purple, and on this purple- 
stained surface the letters were penned in silver and 
sometimes in gold. Of these ancient éditions de luxe we 
possess several Gospel MSS. both in Greek and Latin, all, 
or nearly all, of which were written in the sixth century, 
the Greek ones probably in Constantinople, the Latin in 
North Italy. 


10 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


CHAPTER II 
SOURCES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 


For the reconstruction of the New Testament text in 
Greek, three kinds of sources are available. The first is 
actual manuscripts written in Greek, professing to give 
the words of the sacred text as written by the authors. 
The second is translations made from this original Greek, 
especially if directly made from it, and not through the 
medium of another language, which is itself a direct 
translation from the original Greek. If such a translation 
was carefully made, and has survived in the precise form 
and text in which the translator himself issued it, what we 
possess in it is tantamount to the Greek copy in front of 
the translator when he made his translation. We must 
always allow, of course, for the fact that we cannot always 
say for certain which of two Greek synonyms was before 
the translator, or which was the order of words in the Greek 
text used by him, where two or more slight differences in 
order are known to have existed in Greek MSS. ; in general, 
we must allow for differences of idiom in the two languages 
and for the effects they produce. The third class of evi- 
dence is that of quotations made from the New Testament 
by other writers. Here, again, if a quotation is copied 
by a Greek writer exactly from a Greek New Testament in 
front of him, and this quotation has come down to us in 
the exact form in which the writer saw it, we have, with 
regard to the verse or verses quoted, substantially the 
very copy which he used. Similarly, if it was a Latin or 
a Syriac writer, we have got practically that portion of 
the Latin or Syriac sacred text which lay before the 


Ππ.] SOURCES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 11 


particular writer, and we can treat it as we do the trans- 
lations just mentioned. 


GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 


In the previous chapter some account has been given of 
the external characteristics of manuscripts. At this point 
we may fitly introduce some further details about them, 
deferring a minute description of particular Greek MSS. to 
our next chapter. 

A person or Church in possession of a New Testament, 
say in the period 250 to 300 A.D., would not have it complete 
in one volume. The first and most important volume 
would be EYATTEAION, ‘the Gospel,’ for the singular was 
regularly used of the fourfold Gospel, and it was not till 
about a hundred years later that people began to speak 
of each Gospel separately as a Gospel, and to use the 
plural of the four. As to the order of the Gospels in this 
vellum codex, Matthew would certainly come first, and 
certainly, from about 350 onwards, and probably earlier 
also, the order of the others would be that to which we are 
accustomed ; the position of Matthew as the most impor- 
tant, and in the view of the Church the earliest, of the 
Gospels, was early secure. Each Gospel would be entitled 
merely KATA MAOOAION, etc. Certain, also, if not 
all, copies would be provided with a preface to each Gospel 
giving an account of the author, and also with a set of 
chapter headings, with divisions longer than our modern 
verses, corresponding to those chapter headings marked 
in the margin of the text. In the fourth century Eusebius 
made a set of tables, the use of which became widespread, 
by which one could ascertain at a glance in how many 
Gospels a particular section occurred, an early help to the 
study of the relation between the Gospels. The margins 
of such MSS. contain numbers (for which, of course, the 
Greeks used the letters of their alphabet) which correspond 
to the numbers, etc., in the preliminary tables. 


1 Cf. Nestle, Newe Kirchliche Zeitschrift, xix. (1908), pp. 107 ff. 


12 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [σΗ. 


The second volume of our early New Testament would 
be entitled ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΣ, for Paul became early known 
as ‘the Apostle’ par excellence, and such a copy would 
contain, being Greek, the Epistle to the Hebrews. The 
order of the Epistles would be slightly different from that 
to which we are accustomed, the Epistle to the Hebrews 
coming in after Second Thessalonians, so that all the 
Epistles addressed to churches might be together, Hebrews 
coming last as one on which doubts had been cast, or from 
anti-Jewish prejudice. Such would be the normal arrange- 
ment in Catholic circles, but we have information about 
a much earlier ‘ Apostolos,’ which deserves to be men- 
tioned. ‘The heretic Marcion prepared an edition of the 
Epistles of Paul in Greek about the middle of the second 
century at Rome. ‘The Epistles were in the following order : 
Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, Romans, First 
and Second Thessalonians, Laodiceans (the name he gave 
to our ‘ Ephesians ’), Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. 
The text also was altered considerably to suit Marcion’s 
special views. He also composed a set of prologues to 
these Epistles, as well as chapter headings and sections, 
which, though they have perished in the original Greek, 
are all extant in an early Latin translation, the use of 
which became practically universal in the Western Church. 
Another editor of the Epistles of St. Paul, Euthalius, lived 
at a much later period. 

The third volume would contain Acts, either taken as 
plural (IIPA=EI>) or as singular (IIPASI12), and along 
with it the Catholic Epistles. 

As fourth volume, if there were one at all, we should 
have the Apocalypse. 

The contents of our existing MSS. enable us to argue 
safely as to the practice of the early centuries of the Church. 
The great majority of those still surviving are not MSS. 
of the whole New Testament, but MSS. of portions as 
distinguished above. Most of them, too, are provided 
with such prefatory matter as has been indicated, often 
also with notes for liturgical use, calendars, lists of saints 


11.] SOURCES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 13 


reverenced in particular districts, and so on. Occasion- 
ally, also, they bear the dates when they were written and 
the names of the scribes who wrote them. The total 
number of existing manuscripts containing all or part of 
the Greek New Testament, so far as known to experts, is 
about two thousand five hundred. A subsidiary class of 
Greek manuscripts is that of lectionaries or service books, 
some of respectable age, which contain extracts from the 
New Testament. As yet they have been only in part 
examined, and it is doubtful if they will repay detailed 
examination : between one and two thousand are known 
to exist. 


ANCIENT VERSIONS 


The use of translations of the New Testament books 
became necessary as soon as there were Churches outside 
the bounds of the Roman Empire, or actually within it, to 
which Greek was an unknown language. The period of 
such translations begins probably about the middle of the 
second century. If we could obtain an autograph copy 
of one of these early translations it would be a prize indeed. 
But just as we have lost the original autographs of the 
Greek New Testament books, so in the case of the versions 
we have to depend on various copies, and here, too, critical 
reconstruction is required. When, too, as was undoubtedly 
sometimes the case, there were added to the errors of 
transcription the attempts of revisers to polish or correct 
the original translation in details, or to make a thorough 
revision of it with the Greek original as known to the 
reviser rather than as known to the first translator, obvi- 
ously confusion would enter in, and the scholar who desires 
to recover the Greek text used by the original translator 
will have a task of almost insuperable difficulty. These 
translators did not make their translations in order that 
we might recover the Greek behind them, but to be useful 
to the Christians who could not speak or read Greek. They 
are rather rough and ready as a rule in their character, 
and one may doubt if the translators were always quite 


14 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (CH. 


competent for their task. But the toil of examining the 
MSS. now surviving, and reconstructing their text, is 
worth while, if we only reach a somewhat imperfect know- 
ledge of one Greek copy which a translator had before him 
at a date earlier than the earliest surviving Greek manu- 
script. In general it may be said that translations are not 
of so much use for delicate textual work as they are 
in cases of omissions or additions, especially if they be 
considerable in size, and otherwise attested also. 

Translations sometimes form part of bilingual codices. 
It is difficult from our surviving examples to say how 
widespread the use of such bilinguals was. Some scholars 
think that the earliest Latin MSS. were always bilingual, 
that is, manuscripts in which both the original Greek and 
the Latin were provided either in parallel columns or on 
opposite pages. Examples, some of them fragmentary, 
exist in the case of the following bilinguals: Greek and 
Latin, Greek and Sahidic, Latin and Gothic, Bohairic and 
Arabic, Arabic and Latin. It is easy to understand 
how historical conditions, whether in church or home, 
would make such manuscripts useful. 

Guides to the sense were provided by sense-lines, the 
arrangement of the text in clauses or parts of clauses, 
each representing a thought more or less complete in itself. 
This, of course, would be particularly useful for reading 
aloud to a congregation, and, though the practice arose 
in the case of Greek copies, it is more characteristic of 
Latin. 

The order of books was not always the same in trans- 
lations as in surviving Greek copies. While in the Bohairic 
version, for instance, the order of the Gospels and Epistles 
of Paul was that of Greek copies, manuscripts of the Old- 
Latin Gospels generally had them in the order Matthew, 
John, Luke, Mark; and the Epistles to the Thessalonians 
were in very many Latin copies placed immediately after 
Philippians, while Hebrews was wanting. The raison 
d étre in the first case would be to keep the two apostles 
together, and leave the shortest Gospel to the last; and 


It. ] SOURCES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 15 


in the second case to keep the Epistles to Macedonian 
churches together. In the older Latin copies, as in the 
Greek, the Gospel was a volume by itself, and the other 
parts of the New Testament were probably constituted in 
the same way as in the East, with the exception that the 
Apocalypse would be regularly present in a collection of 
Biblical volumes. 


PATRISTIC CITATIONS 


The third source of evidence for the New Testament text 
is in some ways the most interesting of all. For, if our 
oldest surviving bit of New Testament MS. is not earlier 
than 250 4.D.,1 and our oldest translation of any part 
about a century earlier than that, the New Testament 
books began to be quoted in other writings before the close 
of the first century, and a first-century copy of a New Testa- 
ment book is within easy reach of the original autograph. 
These very early quotations are, however, seldom made 
diserte—that is, explicitly from the New Testament book 
concerned, and accurate quotation was not generally aimed 
at in ancient times. Also, these quotations are very few 
in number and tell us little. It is not, in fact, till towards 
the end of the second century that the great volume of 
Biblical quotation really begins. From that time onwards 
there is a constant stream, and the older the writer the 
more likely he is to provide us with evidence as to valuable 
copies of New Testament books which have no longer 
survived. Let us briefly consider the importance of this 
class of evidence, and at the same time point out the care 
with which it must be used. 

The history of the New Testament text is only a part 
of Church history, and Church history is only a part of 
the history of the world; and just as Church history cannot 
be thoroughly understood without a knowledge of general 
history—and not the least part of the value of Harnack’s 
work consists in his never-failing recognition of this fact,—so 


1 See the next chapter, 


16 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


the history of the New Testament text cannot be understood 
without a knowledge of the history of the Church. This 
is true, of course, of the history of dogmatic movements, 
and so on, but what we are here concerned with is especially 
the history of the lives and writings of individual Christian 
teachers. We know exactly where and when these writers 
wrote, and thus by a study of their quotations we can say 
that in such and such a place at such and such a time a 
copy, say, of the Gospels of a certain character was to be 
found. There will, no doubt, be many gaps in our evidence, 
both because not every Church contained an author, and 
not every author’s work has survived by any means, but 
we shall still have in our hands a foundation of evidence 
on which alone anything like a history of the New Testa- 
ment text can be built, and into which any fresh bit of 
evidence which turns up will have to be fitted. The value, 
then, of patristic evidence is that it is early, dated, and 
localised, whereas the great bulk of our Greek manuscripts 
and most of our versions bear no precise date or place of 
their origin. But there are certain drawbacks in this 
class of evidence as a whole. 

The majority of Fathers quote only small portions of a 
book, and we can only tell the character of their MS. for 
that part, whereas Greek MSS. and versions are generally 
relatively complete. There is one class, however, which 
has not hitherto received adequate attention—that is, the 
class of patristic commentators who generally quote in 
clauses or sections the whole book on which they are 
commenting. Sometimes we can substantially reconstruct 
the MS. they used. 

There is, second, the prevalent practice of quotation 
from memory, which makes it quite impossible in many 
cases to regard the words quoted as an accurate quotation 
from a copy of a biblical MS. in front of the writer. A 
close study of a writer’s comments will, however, often 
tell us which of two competing readings he must have 
had. 

The third and most serious qualification is, that even 


11. ] SOURCES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT 17 


where the quotation was accurately made, we cannot be 
sure that it is preserved exactly as the Father made it. 
The texts of Fathers themselves also depend on manuscripts. 
Here also the original autographs are lost, and here, too, 
we must reconstruct the text of the Father, quotations and 
all, by critical methods. Especially in the case of much 
read books, the scribes who copied out the writings of 
great Fathers were apt at times to harmonise their biblical 
quotations with the form they had in the Bibles with 
which they themselves were familiar :1 sometimes, when 
they have got weary of doing this, they finally give it up, 
and we can detect by critical methods the procedure to 
which down to that point they have been subjecting the 
text. Early editors of printed editions have probably 
committed the same fault also, both of course with motives 
worthy enough in themselves. No edition of a patristic 
work is really valuable for the textual criticism of the 
New Testament which has not itself been the product of 
strict scientific method. 

A final qualification, allied to the last, is one with regard 
to ancient translations of patristic works. For example, 
but for the zeal of the Western Church in the golden age 
of patristic literature we should have irretrievably lost 
many of the works of Origen. But it would be a mistake 
to treat the quotations in such Latin translations of 
Origen’s works as exact translations of the Greek biblical 
quotations as they were made by Origen himself. The 
translations are sometimes not only loose in their repre- 
sentation of Origenian matter, but often provide the 
quotations in a form suited to the Latin Bible used by 
the translator a hundred and fifty years after the original 
composition of the work by Origen.? Translations, then, 
except where criticism leaves one free to break this rule, 
can only be used as evidence for the biblical text of the 


1 See, for example, Journal of Theological Studies, xi. (1909-10), 143-4. 

2 See, for instance, Westcott’s article ‘Origen’ in the Dictionary of 
Christian Biography ; Eugelbrecht’s introduction to his edition of Rufinus’ 
translation of Gregory of Nazianzus’ Sermons (Vienna, 1910). 


B 


18 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


date, the locality, and the language into which the transla- 
tion has been made.! 

In our later chapters we shall see how all classification 
of texts is made possible only by a co-ordinated and 
combined study of the three sources of evidence, to which 
we have briefly alluded, in a pure state. 


1 See also chapter vii. (on Irenaeus). 


Π1.} GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 19 


CHAPTER III 
GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 


In this chapter some account of the older and more impor- 
tant Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament 
may be given, more by way of their external characteristics 
than in regard to their textual quality, which will be more 
profitably discussed later. A manuscript’s importance 
does not of course depend solely on its age. An old 
manuscript is likely to be a more faithful representative of 
its ultimate original only because in its case there has been 
less time for corruptions to accumulate. It is also useful 
in considering the history of the text. But a late manu- 
script may be the last of a series of faithful copies, and 
may thus preserve a better tradition than another manu- 
script actually much earlier in date than it. As a matter 
of fact, we shall see that there is a family likeness between 
most of the later MSS., and a manuscript’s importance to 
the critic really depends on the extent of its divergence 
from the normal in readings. 

The oldest known pieces of New Testament MS. are 
p! (Sd ε 01),1 a papyrus fragment found at Oxyrhynchus, 
in Upper Egypt, and preserved at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 
containing St. Matthew, chap. i. vers. 1-9, 12, 13, 14-20, and 
written probably in the third century ; and p® (Sd ε 02), 
found at the same place and preserved in the British 
Museum, London, containing St. John, chap. i. vers. 23-31, 
33-41, and chap. xx. vers. 11-17, 19-25, of about the same 
date. The most considerable piece of papyrus surviving ~ 

1 The former is the number in Gregory’s system, adopted in my edition of 


the Revisers’ Greek New Testament. The latter is the number in Von 
Soden’s numeration. 


20 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


is one which once contained the Epistle to the Hebrews 
and other books (y}), but chapters ii. 14~-v. 5, x. 8-xi. 13, 
28-xii. 17 of the Epistle to the Hebrews alone survive. 
This MS. was also found at Oxyrhynchus, is preserved in 
the British Museum, and dates from the early part of the 
fourth century. On the other side of the roll was written 
an epitome of Livy’s history. 

The oldest vellum MS., and the most valuable of all 
existing MSS. of the New Testament, is that commonly 
known as B (Codex Vaticanus graecus, 1209). This MS. 
has been in the Vatican Library, Rome, at least since the 
year 1481, in which one of the oldest extant catalogues 
was made. It once contained the whole Greek Bible, with 
the exception of the Books of Maccabees and the possible 
exception of the Apocalypse. In its actual state the New 
Testament lacks the Epistle to the Hebrews from chap. ix. 
ver. 14, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Epistle to Philemon 
also. The existence, and also the merits of this MS., were 
to some extent known in previous centuries, and during 
the nineteenth century our knowledge of it became gradu- 
ally more and more accurate, the climax being reached in 
the superb photograph issued by Hoepli of Milan in 1904.1 
Unfortunately even a photograph cannot give a satis- 
factory reproduction of the beauty of the original writing, 
as those letters in the MS. which had faded were inked 
over in the tenth or eleventh century, and equipped with 
accents and breathings. The Gospels are divided into 
chapters according to a system almost unique. The 
order of the parts of the New Testament is Gospels, Acts, 
Catholic Epistles, Paul. 

The MS. is written on very fine vellum, as is usual with 
our oldest MSS., said to be made of antelopes’ skins. It 
is 27 centimetres square and has now 759 leaves, of which 
the New Testament occupies 142. There are three narrow 
columns to the page, recalling the appearance of a papyrus 
roll, from 40 to 44 lines per column, and from 16 to 18 


1 An exhaustive study of the MS. is expected from the hands of Monsignor 
Giovanni Mercati, D.D., of the Vatican Library. 


1π.} GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 21 


letters in a line. Gatherings are in five sheets or ten 
leaves (twenty pages). The Old Testament was written 
by two scribes, both of whom are different from the scribe 
who wrote nearly all the New Testament (actually from 
Matt. ix. 5 onwards). 

There can be no doubt that the manuscript was written 
in the fourth century, and as to the place of writing, the 
various clues which have been skilfully followed out have 
been gradually leading to a result. It is obvious that a 
large MS. like this will offer many points, textual (including 
grammatical, etc.) and palzographical, which will help to 
a conclusion. The text of the Psalms represents, accord- 
ing to Rahlfs,? the recension made by Hesychius of Egypt. 
In the Gospels, again, the readings of our MS. are strikingly 
supported by the oldest papyrus fragments as they turn 
up in Egypt, as well as by many of Origen’s and Cyril of 
Alexandria’s 3 quotations. In Acts, too, there is the most 
striking resemblance between the text of B and the quota- 
tions of the Alexandrian traveller, Cosmas Indicopleustes, 
who lived in the sixth century. Further, in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews (chap. i. ver. 3) a reading of B has the sole 
support of an Egyptian Greek work attributed to Serapion, 
and in chap. li. vers. 2 and 6, it alone of Greek MSS. agrees 
with a papyrus of Egyptian origin in a reading undoubtedly 
right. The Egyptian versions, especially the older, the 
Sahidic, were made from a text very much of this type. 
Of course, such arguments do not conclusively prove an 
Egyptian origin for our MS., but they certainly make it 
highly probable. It is practically decisive, however, that 
instances of vulgar Egyptian orthography occur in this 
MS., especially in the central portions of Isaiah. 


1 Traube, Nomina Sacra, pp. 66 f. 

2 Septuaginta-Studien, ii. (Géttingen, 1907). 

3 In the Cyril Papyrus (saec. vi.); Serruys in Revue de Philologte, xxxiii. 
(1910), 113 ff. 

4H. St. J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, vol. i. 
(Cambridge, 1909), p. 114, etc. It is right to mention, however, that Traube, 
on the basis of the practice in the use of contractions for sacred names, 
decided that B was less Egyptian than Alexandrinus. In Nomina Sacra, 
p. 42, however, he says explicitly of B, ‘gewiss aus Agypten stammt.’ 


22 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [σΗ. 


The consideration of the text of B will come more fitly 
later. Here it may simply be stated that, after all criti- 
cisms of those who uphold its high character, it remains 
the greatest and most important MS. for the New Testa- 
ment text. There are secondary traces here and there in 
its text: for example, μὴ ἑτοιμάσας ἢ ποιήσας in Luke xii. 
47 has all the appearance of an early and widespread 
conflation, and in Luke xix. 37 πάντων ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων, 
ungrammatical as it is, represents a transition stage to the 
ordinary reading πασῶν, x.t.A., which would have ousted the 
original reading πάντων ὧν εἶδον (simply, without δυνάμεων), 
but for the fortunate discovery of the Sinai MS. of the Old- 
Syriac : δυνάμεων is, in fact, a marginal gloss to explain the 
indefinite πάντων. But such features are like spotsin the sun. 

Next in value to B comes δὲ, written later in the fourth 
century, the Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by Tischendorf 
at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. What 
remains of it is now preserved mainly at St. Petersburg, 
having been bought by the Tsar, but a small portion is at 
Leipzig. Like B, it was once a complete Bible, but, unlike 
it, it still has the New Testament complete, with the 
Apocalypse, the so-called Epistle of Barnabas, and a portion 
of the Shepherd of Hermas. Certain lost leaves may have 
contained the Didache. It has been conjectured that this 
MS. and B were two of the fifty Bibles ordered by Con- 
stantine from Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, for the 
churches in Constantinople. Tischendorf was of opinion 
that one scribe of this MS. was identical with one of the 
scribes of B. Certainly the two MSS. are textually closely 
allied in the New Testament. In this MS. the Epistles of 
Paul come before Acts. There are some indications that 
the manuscript from which & was copied was defective or 
difficult to read in parts; for example, it reads ἐπαγγελίαν 
for ἐπιταγήν in 1 Tim. i. 1, and θέλημα for χάρισμα in 
2 Tim. i. 6. Many correctors have been at work on the 
text.1 Perhaps the most interesting is one of the seventh 


1 Scribes best distinguished in L. Traube, Nomina Sacra, pp. 66 ff. See 
Lake’s Introduction, pp. xvii ff., for an account of the correctors. 


tI. ] GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 23 


century (indicated now by & 98), who wrote the subscrip- 
tion to the book of Ezra: ‘It has been collated with a 
very old copy (παλαιότατον ἀντίγραφον), which was collated 
by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus, which copy at 
the end had a subscription in his own hand to the following 
effect: “‘ Taken and corrected according to the Hexapla 
of Origen. Antonius collated; I, Pamphilus, corrected.” ’ 
Pamphilus is the venerated friend of Eusebius of Caesarea, 
who died a martyr’s death in 309. Together they founded 
at Caesarea a library of biblical and patristic writings on 
papyrus rolls, the nucleus of which consisted of Origen’s 
voluminous writings, especially his editions and interpreta- 
tions of biblical books. After the Book of Esther there is 
a similar subscription, and with regard to the Book of 
Psalms it is certain that the corrector’s copy agreed with 
that of Eusebius, while that of the original scribe was of 
a different type. It is clear, therefore, that in the seventh 
century our MS. was at Caesarea. As to its original home 
authorities vary. It is perfectly clear, however, that the 
prophetical portion of the Old Testament was either written 
by an Egyptian scribe, or copied from a parent MS. written 
by an Egyptian scribe.t The paleography of the MS. is 
also, according to Crum, closely akin to many of the older 
Coptic hands.” It would seem, therefore, that we must 
look to Egypt for the origin of this MS. also. St. Jerome 
at Bethlehem had a MS. closely related to &, in St. 
Matthew’s Gospel, as we learn from his references in his 
commentary on that Gospel.® 

In all, 34634 leaves of this MS. have survived, of which 
the New Testament occupies 1474. The manuscript is 
written on thin vellum. The pages measure 43 by 37°8 
centimetres, arranged in four narrow columns of writing, 
each containing 48 lines. The writing is rather a large 
uncial. The margins of the text bear the section numbers 

1 The peculiar orthography makes this clear: Thackeray, Grammar of 
the O. T. in Greek, pp. 112 ff. 

2 Thackeray, op. cit., p. 72. 


3 Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Latine, ed. Words- 
worth and White, i. 658 f. 


24 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


compiled for the Gospels by Eusebius, who died in 
340. 

The next uncial which falls to be mentioned is that 
known by the symbol A, the Codex ‘ Alexandrinus,’ which 
has been much the best known to Western scholars during 
the past three centuries. Now the chief ornament of the 
manuscript department of the British Museum, this manu- 
script was offered to James 1. of England? by Cyril Lucar, 
who was Patriarch of Alexandria till 1621, and afterwards 
of Constantinople (1621-38). The history of the MS., 
prior to its coming into the hands of Lucar, is obscure. 
An Arabic note in it shows that it was in the Patriarchal 
Library at Cairo at the time the note was written by ‘ the 
humble Athanasius,’ who would appear to be, as Professor 
Burkitt thinks, the librarian of that library in Lucar’s 
day. According to the statement of a deacon of Cyril’s, 
Cyril obtained the MS. from Mount Athos in 1616. If this 
be true, the connexion of the MS. with Alexandria is 
fortuitous, and it is really a Constantinople MS., as indeed 
the character of its text would lead one to conjecture.” 

The manuscript, written in the fifth century, now con- 
tains 773 leaves, but originally had 822, of which the New 
Testament with the Letters of Clement occupies 143. 
Kach leaf measures 32 by 26:3 centimetres, there are two 
columns to the page, and the writing is in a firm and fairly 
large square uncial hand. When complete, the manuscript 
contained the whole of the Old and New Testaments, as 
well as the First Epistle of Clement of Rome, the homily 
which is usually known as Second Clement, and the apo- 
eryphal work known as the Psalms of Solomon. The 
following parts are now wanting: Matt.i. 1-xxv. 6, John vi. 
50-viii. 52, 2 Cor. iv. 13—xii. 6, and the Psalms of Solomon. 

The manuscript known by the symbol ©, the Codex 
Ephraemi Rescriptus, is now the mere débris of what was 

1 And actually received by Charles 1. through Sir Thomas Roe, our Am- 
Saag to the Porte, as James had died shortly after his acceptance of the 


2 T follow Professor Burkitt’s account (Journal of Theological Studies, xi. 
603 ff., July 1910). 


1. ] GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 25 


once a stately codex. Written in the fifth century, the 
manuscript contained originally the whole of the Greek 
Bible, but when it had become old-fashioned and mutilated, 
the portions of it we now possess were used in the twelfth 
century to receive thirty-eight treatises in Syriac of St. 
Ephraim the Syrian Father (7373). Vellum was in many 
places scarce at the time, and it was possible to wash or 
rub off the writing with sufficient thoroughness to permit 
of the reception of fresh writing on the old sheets. A 
manuscript so treated is known as a palimpsest (πάλιν, 
again, Yaw, 1 wipe). The libraries of Europe contain a fair 
number of such manuscripts,! the decipherment of which 
puts a great strain on the eyesight. Tischendorf was able 
to recover some portions of every book in the New Testa- 
ment except the Second Epistle of John and the Second 
Epistle to the Thessalonians. 

Of the 238 leaves, which the New Testament would have 
occupied when complete, only 145 remain. They measure 
33 by 26:6 centimetres, have one column only to the page, 
usually of forty-one lines, each containing about forty 
letters, which are a little larger than those in B, &, and A. 

No manuscript surpasses in interest thg celebrated 
Graeco-Latin Codex Bezae (D), the greatest literary treasure 
of the University of Cambridge, England. It comes first 
into notice in the sixteenth century, when it was brought 
by the Bishop of Clermont to the Council of Trent (1546).? 
It was used by Henricus Stephanus for his editio regia 
of the Greek New Testament, published at Paris in 1550. 
Theodorus Beza, the Genevan Reformer, who had obtained 
it from the monastery of St. Irenaeus at Lyons in 1562, 


1 A list of them has been published by Emile Chatelain. 

2 T assume with Dom H. Quentin (Revue Bénédictine [1906], pp. 1-23) that 
the ‘antiquissimus quidam Graecus codex, quem Tridentum attulit Claro- 
montanensis Episcopus anno Domini 1546’ (S. Hieronymi Stridonensis Opera. 
.. . diligentia et labore Mariani Victorit Reatini, Episeopi Amerini.. . 
tom. i. (Paris, 1609), p. 509 F.), which read οὕτως after μένειν in Ioh. xxi. 22, 
is the same as the ‘antiquissimo codice Lugdunensi’ (op. cit. p. 510 F.), which 
read uocabis in Matt. i. 23, though it looks as if Victorius himself had not 
been aware of their identity. There is just a possibility that there were two 
kindred MSS., one at Clermont (in Auvergne), the other at Lyons. (The 
original edition of Victoriys’s Jerome appeared at Rome in 1566.) 


26 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cH. 


gave it to the University of Cambridge in 1581, accompanied 
by a characteristic epistle. As to its early history there 
has been much speculation. On the whole, there seems 
most reason to connect it with Lyons itself. The archetype 
of its Greek side, as we shall see later, shared most striking 
readings with the copies of the Gospels and Acts used by 
St. Irenaeus of Lyons himself. Again, in the ninth century, 
the martyrologist Ado, who probably wrote at Lyons, 
makes use of a text of Acts which is the same as that in 
Codex Bezae, but otherwise unknown.! 

The manuscript has been commonly assigned to the sixth 
century, but there is just as much reason to attribute it 
to the fifth. It now contains Matthew, John, Luke, Mark 
(in this order), 3 John 11-15 (in Latin only), and Acts.? 
Dom John Chapman has calculated from the make-up of 
the manuscript that it originally comprised also the 
Apocalypse and 1 and 2 John, these following immediately 
on Mark (in that order). The books that survive are not 
in themselves complete, as the following parts are lacking : 
in the Greek (which is always on the left), Matt. i. 1-20, 
vi. 20-ix. 2, xxvii. 2-12, John i. 16~iii1. 26, Acts viii. 29- 
x. 14, xxi. 2-10, 15-18, xxii. 10-20, xxii. 29-xxviii. 31; in 
the Latin (always on the right), Matt. i. 1-11, vi. 8—viii. 27, 
xxvil. 65-xxvii. 1, John i. 1-iii. 16, Acts viii. 20-x. 4, xx. 
31—xxi. 2, xxi. 7-10, xxii. 2-10, xxii. 20-xxviii. 31. Whereas 
it has now 406 leaves, it must have had originally at least 
510. Each page contains only one column (and therefore 
writing in one language only), and measures 26 by 21°5 
centimetres. The lines are short sense-lines, suitable for 
reading aloud. The writing is rather a large uncial, betray- 
ing a certain awkwardness, and there is a decided likeness 
between the shapes of the Greek and Latin letters. 

In the particular community in which the book was 
used, the Bible was read in Greek either generally or 
occasionally, but the community itself was Latin-speaking. 


1 Dom Quentin, op. cit. 
2 But Acts followed immediately on Mark in the archetype. 
3 Expositor, 1905, ii. 46 ff. 


1.) GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 27 


The Latin side (d) is then a sort of ‘crib’ to the Greek 
side (Ὁ). The vulgarisms and errors in it forbid us to 
suppose that it was intended for formal and public read- 
ing. Neither side is simply a rendering of the other. 
There are many discrepancies between the two, and the 
two texts are in a sense of separate origin. The actual 
character of Codex Bezae is best explained in the words of 
Professor Burkitt, whom I am following in this section, 
as so often elsewhere: 1} ‘This, of course, might take place 
in many ways. The most obvious is that the immediate 
ancestor of Codex Bezae was a Greek MS., of which a Latin 
translation was made by some one who was familiar with 
one of the current Latin versions ;? on this hypothesis 
some readings of this Latin translation were the result of 
literal translation from the opposite side, others will differ 
from the Greek side and agree with the current ecclesiastical 
Latin. Under these circumstances the Greek side might 
be corrected here and there to agree verbally with the 
Latin on the opposite page. Our Codex Bezae (on this 
hypothesis) is a transcript of this bilingual so corrected : 
D therefore contains some readings which are a mere literal 
translation of a not absolutely literal Latin version, while 
most of the differences of d from the bulk of Latin MSS. 
are instances where the scholar who produced the trans- 
lation deserted the ordinary Latin renderings to make his 
work agree more literally with the Greek on the opposite 
side.’ Dr. Burkitt gives three examples to prove his 
points. In Luke xxii. 61 the two sides differ: D (with 
one other Greek MS., and three Old-Latin) adds μὴ εἰδέναι 
με after ἀπαρνήσῃ με, but ὦ omits with the bulk of the 
authorities, here retaining the basal Latin rendering. In 
Matt. xx. 2 D and d (as often) agree against other Latin 
texts (ἡμέραν, diem, against diurno). In Matt. x. 24 the 
1 ‘The Date of Codex Bezae,’ in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. iii. 
(1901-2), pp. 501-13, 
2 May I, not Professor Burkitt, point out that in Luke xv., which I have 
specially studied, there are several interesting agreements with a (for which 
see the next chapter), where all other Old-Latin authorities go a different 


way? Elsewhere we find d sometimes in agreement with &, (See the next 
chapter. ) 


28 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


προσφέρεις οὗ D (for πρόσφερε) is best explained by sup- 
posing that the offeres of the Latin side (really a colloquial 
form of the imperative) was mistaken for an indicative, 
and thus rendered back into a Greek indicative. 

More than a dozen later scribes have left their marks 
on the MS. Only one need be considered here, the one 
called by Scrivener G. He was a scholar, not a professional 
scribe; probably, in fact, the bishop for whose church 
the MS. was made, and therefore contemporary with the 
original writing. He makes alterations in the Latin in the 
interests of scholarship throughout St. Matthew and in the 
early chapters of Acts. 

Another manuscript, also known as D, but to distinguish 
it from the last as D, or Dpaul, is the Graeco-Latin Codex 
Claromontanus, so called because formerly at Clermont in 
Beauvais, but now preserved at Paris. It contains the 
Epistles of Paul, including Hebrews (a later addition to the 
MS.), with the exception of Rom. i. 1-7, 27-30, and 1 Cor. 
xiv. 13-22, of which the Greek side is lost. The MS. was 
written in the sixth century, contains 533 leaves, measuring 
24:6 by 19:5 centimetres, with one column of twenty-one 
lines to the page. The Greek is on the left side and the 
Latin on the right. The MS. is the leading ‘ Western’ 
authority for the text of the Epistles. The Latin side is 
not always dependent on the Greek. In fact, with the 
exception of harmonisations with the Vulgate Latin text 
in the longer Epistles, the Latin side is precisely the same 
text as Lucifer of Cagliari (in Sardinia) uses in his writings 
in the fourth century. It was this fact that led me, taking 
into account the fact that Sardinia in the sixth century 
became a province of the Byzantine Empire, and therefore 
officially Greek-speaking, to conjecture that the MS. is of 
Sardinian origin.1 It contains an interesting transposition 


1 Journal of Theological Studies, vol. vi. pp. 240-3. The suggestion was 
considered worthy of mention by Traube, Nomina Sacra, p. 177, and 
Gregory, Textkritik, p. 1040, but has been ignored by Nestle, Hin/. (ed. 3), 73. 
There is a close relationship in abbreviations, etc., between Dpaul and Devv. 
(Traube, op. cit., pp. 178 f.). It may be that Devv. is also a Sardinian book : 
Nestle, loc. cit., goes so far as to say that Dpaul is ‘offenbar urspriinglich 
damit (7.e. with Devv-) zusammengehorig.’ See below on E. 


1π.} GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 29 


in 1 Cor. xiv., where verses 34 and 35 come after 
verse 40.1 

E (or more precisely E?), a Latino-Greek manuscript of 
the Acts of the Apostles, preserved at Oxford, has had 
an extraordinarily romantic history. Written in Sardinia 
towards the end of the sixth century, it somehow found 
its way to Northumbria, where the Venerable Bede used 
it in the compilation of his commentary on Acts (between 
709 and 716).2. Given soon after amongst other precious 
books to Boniface, when he started on his mission to the 
Continent, it was probably later transferred by him to 
Burchard, when Boniface consecrated him Bishop of 
Wiirzburg (Bavaria). In the Thirty Years’ War (in the 
seventeenth century) Wiirzburg was sacked, and this 
manuscript among others was acquired from the Swedish 
army by Archbishop Laud, who in due course presented it 
to the Bodleian Library. The MS. lacks from chap. xxvi. 
29 to the end. 

H (or more precisely HP), once a complete manuscript 
of the Epistles of St. Paul, was already in the thirteenth 
century (and perhaps earlier) used by bookbinders as fly- 
leaves for other books in one of the monasteries on Mount 
Athos. Forty-one leaves only out of about 450 are 
known, and are divided between six different places: 22 at 
Paris, 8 at Athos, 3 at St. Petersburg, 3 at Moscow, 3 at 
Kiev, and 2 at Turin. The ingenuity of Monsieur Omont, 
Dean Robinson, and Professor Lake has recovered the 
readings of twenty-two other pages from the ‘ off-sets’ 
left by them on the pages opposite. We thus possess the 
text of the following parts of the Epistles, about a ninth 
of the entire text: 1 Cor. x. 19-32, xi. 6-20; 2 Cor. iv. 
2-7, x. 5-xi. 8, xi. 12-xii. 4; Gal. capitula 9-12, i. 1-10, 1. 
9-17, iv. 27-v. 10; Col. i. 23-ii. 11, ii. 17-iii. 11; 1 Thess. 
ii. 9-13, iv. 4-11; Hebr. capitula 6-11, i. 3-8, ii. 9-18, 1. 13- 
18, iv. 12-15, x. 1-7, 32-38, xii. 10-18, xiii. 21-25 and title ; 


1 For other authorities see my critical apparatus. 
2 Venerabilis Baedae Historiam FEcclesiasticam ... recogn, ... O. 
Plummer, tom. i. (Oxon. 1896), p. exlvii. 


30 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


1 Tim. capitula 1-18, i. 4-iii. 2, iii. 7-14, vi. 9-13; 2 Tim. 
i. 17-ii. 9; Tit. capitula 2-6, and i. 1-3, i. 15-11. 5, iii. 13-15 
and title, with the colophon to the whole book, stating that 
it was written στιχηδόν (2.e. in sense-lines), and was 
collated with the copy in the library of Caesarea written 
by the hand of Pamphilus. The writing in its present 
state is clumsy, but this is due to the fact that the original 
characters have been worked over. The MS. dates from 
the latter half of the fifth or from the sixth century. Its 
interest, apart from the purity of its text, centres mainly 
in the fact that it purports to be a copy of an early edition 
of the Epistles of Paul, equipped with prolegomena, chap- 
ter divisions and chapter headings by one Euthalius (or 
Evagrius—the name cannot be read for certain).1 

The Codex Regius, known as L, is an eighth-century MS. 
of the Gospels in Paris. It wants portions of Matthew, 
Mark, and John, the chief point of interest being that it 
contains both endings to Mark, a peculiarity shared with 
four other uncials, one minuscule, and one form of the 
Sahidic and of the Ethiopic versions.2_ The text of the MS. 
as a whole is interesting as preserving many early elements 
amidst later material. 

The Gospel manuscripts known as N, O, 2, and ® may 
fitly be treated together. All are of the sixth century, 
written in gold or silver letters on purple-stained vellum, 
perhaps in the same workshop at Constantinople. All are 
defective, but each serves in a measure to supplement the 
defects of the others. Finally, all represent the same type 
of text; according to Burkitt, that which was most in 
vogue at Constantinople in the age of Justinian ;* according 
to Von Soden, the text used by the great Cappadocian 
Fathers, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory 
of Nazianzus, in the last third of the fourth century.‘ 


1 See p. 12. 

2 See the evidence in my note at the end of Mark, and add a Graeco-Sahidic 
MS. since published by Heer in Oriens Christianus for 1912, pp. 1-47. 

3 Journal of Theological Studies, i. 626. (He is speaking of N and & 


only.) 
4 Die Schriften des N. T., u.s.w. Bd. i. (Berlin, 1902-10), pp. 1466 ff. 
The two views need not be inconsistent. 


11.] GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 31 


What remains of N is distributed between five different 
libraries: 182 leaves being at St. Petersburg, 53 at Patmos, 
6 in Rome, 4 in London, and 2 in Vienna. O, which con- 
tains most of the second half of St. Matthew, was bought 
in 1899 by an officer of the French army at or near Sinope 
in Pontus, and is now in Paris, except for one leaf, which 
is at Mariupolis on the Sea of Azov. 2 is at Rossano, in 
South Italy, and contains only Matthew and Mark : it is 
remarkable from the artistic point of view. Φ, at Berat, 
in Albania, contains the same two Gospels with lacunae. 
Of these four, only one was known to scholars before 1880, 
and that very imperfectly. It is not at all impossible that 
others of the same kind, or lost portions of these, may turn 
up any day in the Levant. 

W.—To this manuscript one can merely call attention, 
as at the moment of writing very little is known about it. 
Formerly in the library of the monastery of Schenute at 
Atripe (near Sohag), opposite Akhmim, in Egypt,’ it is a 
complete codex of the Gospels, which came into the posses- 
sion of C. L. Freer, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A., 
early in 1906. Written not earlier than the fourth century, 
and not later than the sixth, it is remarkable in giving the 
Gospels in the ‘ Western’ order, Matthew, John, Luke, 
Mark, and in containing an interpolation within the longer 
ending of St. Mark, for which no other Greek authority is 
known to be extant. 

Considerations of space do not permit much reference 
to the minuscule MSS. Their interest, like that of all 
other MSS., depends on the extent of their deviation from 
the normal, and their classification, which began about a 
generation ago, has been very far advanced by Von Soden 
and his collaborators. Perhaps the most interesting group 
is the so-called Ferrar group, which comprises now about 
a dozen manuscripts,? distinguished from all others princi- 
pally by the fact that they give the section about the 


1 This origin is, however, disputed by Sanders in his 1911 edition of the 
Deuteronomy and Joshua MS. from the same hoard. 
2 Namely, 18, 69, 124, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 988, 1689, 1709. 


32 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


adulterous woman (John vii. 53-viii. 11) not in John’s 
Gospel at all, but after Luke xxi. 38. Either position is of 
course due to some editor, as the section in question is no 
part of the Fourth Gospel, but the Ferrar group alone 
contains it in the position named. The manuscripts form- 
ing this group were written at various dates between the 
eleventh and fifteenth centuries, and by carefully following 
up clues afforded by the characteristics of the MSS. them- 
selves, scholars have proved that the archetype (or original) 
of all must have been either in Calabria or in Sicily. 


1 See Ferrar and Abbott’s edition (Dublin, 1877); Abbé Martin, Quatre 
Manuscrits Importants (Paris, 1886); R. Harris, Zhe Origin of the Ferrar 
Group (Cambridge, 1893); K. Lake in the Jowrnal of Theological Studies, 
vol, i. (1899-1900), pp. 117-20. 


iv.) THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 3848 


CHAPTER IV 
THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 


§ 1. Latin (OLD) 


From about the beginning of the second century B.c. 
Greek became almost a second language in Italy. Especi- 
ally after the annexation of Greece as a Roman Province 
in 146 B.c., under the name of Achaia, the influx of Greeks 
to Rome was enormous. The Greek peoples were strong 
where the Romans were weak. The Roman had all the 
genius for law and order; he was the perfect soldier, but 
the Greek excelled in all the subtler arts. Very soon the 
medical profession, for instance, was practically confined 
to Greeks: from them also were drawn the painters, 
sculptors, teachers, and cooks of the rapidly developing 
Roman Republic. Multitudes of the slaves and freedmen 
were Greeks: the lower orders in Rome, much recruited 
from this class, acquired an easy familiarity with the 
Greek language. At the other pole of society education 
was not complete without a study of Greek. As the 
language was left in possession by the Romans in the East, 
and became a second official language of the State, it was 
necessary that all administrators should have facility in 
its use. Society from the top to the bottom was bilingual, 
and Greek and Latin were referred to usually by the 
simple phrase both languages (utraque lingua, ἑκατέρα 
γλῶσσα).1 

It is necessary to realise this fact fully in order to under- 


1 See my article Did St. Paul Speak Latin? in the Hapositor for April 
1911, p. 338. 


σ 


34 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


stand the genesis and history of Latin versions of Scripture 
or parts of Scripture in the West. Christianity came to 
the West in the first instance as a Greek thing. The 
Church of Rome is addressed by Paul in Greek (A.D. 56-7) ; 
the Church of Rome through Clement writes a letter in 
Greek to the Church of Corinth (A.D. 95-6); the bishops 
have all got Greek names down to Victor (A.D. 189). The 
anti-pope Hippolytus as late as the period 200 to 230 
writes all his voluminous works in Greek, and good Greek 
too. Irenaeus, native of Asia Minor, writes his five books 
against the Gnostic heresies in Greek about 185, though 
his church was Lyons. Briefly it may be said that every 
one in Italy and Sicily understood Greek, and in certain 
parts of Gaul and Spain, particularly on the Mediterranean 
seaboard, it was equally well known. 

This being the case, it will be seen that the translation 
of the sacred books into Latin becomes unnecessary until 
a reading population is reached which is ignorant of Greek. 
Christianity doubtless first influenced the middle class, 
which is always of higher morality and not infrequently of 
better education than the other classes of society. Only 
as Christianity in the West spread more widely or pene- 
trated to the lowest strata of society would translations 
into Latin be required. The very character of the oldest 
Latin translations of biblical books known to us, careless 
and colloguial, shows that they can have been intended 
only for the uneducated. For centuries it had been an 
accepted canon that the language of literature must be 
very different from that of conversation. In the fourth 
century the attempt was made, particularly by Jerome, 
to polish these early translations. 

The position of Greek in the Western half of the Empire 
begins to be insecure with the loosening of the bonds 
between East and West, which culminated in the creation 
of two empires in the first quarter of the fourth century, 
one Latin and the other Greek. When this separation 


1 Cf. Orr, Some Neglected Factors in the Early History of Christianity 
(London, 1899). 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC _ 35 


had become complete, the knowledge of Greek in the West 
was confined to a highly educated class, and translations 
of Greek works became, for the first time since the age of 
the Republic, the order of the day. 

An important exception to the general situation is to 
be found in the province called ‘ Africa,’ the territory of 
ancient Carthage, which was definitely annexed by Rome 
in 146 B.c. Latin was there the official language and the 
language of civilisation, and there can be no doubt that 
in this thickly populated and well-evangelised country 
translations would be an earlier necessity than elsewhere. 
The probability is that ‘ Africa’ was originally evangelised 
direct from Rome itself, but of the beginnings of Chris- 
tianity in Africa we know nothing for certain. The 
Semitic antecedents of the country may account for the 
rapid growth of Christianity there. The whole history, 
however, is dark till the end of the third quarter of the 
second century. Then, in the ‘ Acts’ of the Scillitan 1 
Martyrs, who met their death by decapitation in 180, light 
begins to dawn. The libri et epistulae Pauli, which they had, 
can hardly have been in any other language but Latin.? 
It is perfectly clear from references in Tertullian, who wrote 
at Carthage (mainly in Latin, but also in Greek) between 
A.D. 195 and 218, that Latin translations of at least some 
parts of Scripture existed in his time. Tertullian’s regular 
practice was to use the Greek original and to translate for 
himself. But, in addition to his actual mention of exist- 
ing Latin translations, it is clear that he sometimes used 
them himself. A study of his quotations by Monceaux has 
shown that he must have possessed translations of Luke, 
John, Galatians, First Corinthians, Romans and Ephesians.‘ 


1 Scilli was in Numidia. The Acts are published in the appendix to Dean 
Robinson’s The Passion of S. Perpetua (Texts and Studies, vol. i. No. 2, 
Cambridge, 1891). 

2 P. Monceaux, Histoire Littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne, etc., t. i. (Paris, 
1901), pp. 105 f. Chapter iii. pp. 97-173 is a valuable account of ‘La Bible 
Latine en Afrique.’ 

3 An interesting case occurs in his quotation of Heb. vi. 5, where it is clear 
that his Greek copy had lost one short line. See p. 86. 

4 Monceaux, op. cit., pp. 110, 113-18. 


36 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


The existence of a (relatively) complete New Testament 
in Africa first comes into clear view in the writings of 
Cyprian ( 258), who quotes a Latin Bible abundantly 
and accurately. The fact that on close study the trans- 
lation used by him shows secondary characteristics ' con- 
firms the conclusion that in Tertullian’s time a Latin New 
Testament already existed in Africa, and suggests that it 
is the result of a long period of translation commenced 
not later than 150. There was, however, in Cyprian’s time 
no one official version. For instance, a Bishop Nemesianus 
of Tubunas (on the confines of Numidia and Mauritania), 
who was present at the Rebaptism Council of Carthage in 
A.D. 256 with Cyprian himself, uses a Latin translation 
which differs from that employed by him, and is probably 
earlier in origin.2 The texts used in Africa down to about 
the end of the fourth century (and in some cases even later) 
are substantially identical with Cyprian’s, though some 
have been subjected to revision in varying degrees.? In 
particular, the quotations of the Donatists show that they 
clung more closely to old-fashioned texts than the Catholics 
did. Details may be more fittingly reserved for Chapter vI. 

In this department of our subject, as elsewhere, we start 
from the chronological and local basis provided by quota- 
tions in authors, and this method has enabled Drs. Hort, 
Sanday, Burkitt, and Hans von Soden, each profiting by 
the work of his predecessors, to identify certain existing 
manuscripts as belonging to the ‘ African’ family. We 
shall proceed to enumerate these. 


‘ African’ Gospel MSS. 


k. The symbol & is applied to a MS. (with one column 
to the page), which now contains no more than Mark 


1 E.g. in Luke xii. 47 Cyprian’s paruerit is a corruption of the primitive 
parauerit (Ο. H. Turner in Journal of Theological Studies, vol. ii. pp. 606 f.) ; 
in 2 Tim. iv. 3 κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοήν is rendered twice over. 

2 0. H. Turner in Journal of Theological Studies, vol. ii. pp. 602-6. 

3 Old-Latin Bibl. Texts, ii. pp. Ιχχχν ff.[Victorinus?] De Physicis, Optatus, 
De Pascha Computus (Burkitt, Old Latin and the Itala, p. 7). 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 37 


vill. 8-11, 14-16; viii. 19-xvi. 9, and Matt. i. 1-iii. 10; 
iv. 2-xiv. 17; xv. 20-36. The manuscript was written 
not later than 400 a.D. in Africa, and probably passed 
through Spain to the Irish monastery of Bobbio in North 
Italy, in the splendid library of which it was preserved for 
many centuries until it found a home in the public library 
at Turin, where it now is. The manuscript is very in- 
accurate, and was probably copied from a cursive original. 
It gives a text practically identical with the quotations 
of St. Cyprian.” It is also notable for the fact that it 
contains (only) the shorter ending to St. Mark’s Gospel. 
What is distinctive in the ‘ African ’ Old-Latin texts is the 
choice of renderings more than differences of underlying 
Greek text. A predilection, for instance, for sermo as a 
rendering for λόγος (rather than verbum), for expello, 
excludo as renderings for ἐκβάλλω 3 (rather than ezcio), for 
felix as a rendering for μακάριος (rather than beatus), and 
such like, marks off ‘ African’ texts from those used 
outside. 

e. This symbol is given to a MS. (with two columns to 
the page) which contains the following portions of the 
four Gospels: Matt. xii. 49-xiv. 11, xiv. 22-xxiv. 50, 
xxviii. 2-20; Mark i. 20-iv. 8, iv. 19-vi. 9, xii. 37-46, 
xiii. 2-3, 24-27, 33-36; Luke i. 1l-viii. 30, viii. 48-xi. 4, 
xi. 24—xxiv. 53; John i. 1—-xviii. 12, xviii. 25-xxi. 25. A 
copy of two further fragments, made in 1762, has recently 
been discovered in Rome (containing Matt. xiv. 11-22).4 
The MS. was written in the fifth century. It is one of the 
class of purple MSS., with silver and gold lettering, and 
very narrow columns. Native, no doubt, to Africa, it found 
its way to Trent, and, except for the one leaf at Dublin, 
is now at Vienna. It is only for 108 verses or parts of 
verses that both & and e have survived, and comparison 

1 It was scorched, but no more than scorched, by the disastrous fire of 
January 1904. 

2 Comparison between & and Cyprian in Old-Latin Biblical Texts, ii. 
Oxford, 1886), pp. xlii-Ixvii(Sanday), and Hans von Soden, Das lateinische 

ewe Testament in A Srika zur Zeit Cyprians (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 111-34. 


3 Old-Latin Biblical Tezxts, ii. p. 1xxxvi. 
4 Linke in Sitz. Bay. Akad., 1893(2), 281-7. 


38 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


between them is possible. The result of this comparison 
is to show that, while the underlying basis is in both cases 
the same, e has many differences from k, and should be 
regarded as a later partial revision of the & type, according 
to models current in the fourth century on the northern 
side of the Mediterranean.1 Augustine probably employed 
a Gospel text of this kind before 400. 

Isolated African readings are also to be found in a late 
MS. c (Codex Colbertinus). For example, at the end of 
St. Luke (chaps. xxiii. and xxiv.) a comparison with e and 
Cyprian shows clear ‘African’ traces amidst general 
‘Europeanism.’ 2 And ¢ is not quite alone in this: other 
Latin MSS. show occasional ‘ African’ characteristics, not 
even excepting Irish or semi-Irish manuscripts of the 
eighth and ninth centuries, such as gat.2 Moreover, Dom 
de Bruyne has recently recovered African readings from 
chapter headings in various MSS., whose connexion with 
Africa had never been suspected. 


‘ African’ MS. of Acts 


h. This MS. (with one column to the page), known as the 
Fleury Palimpsest, is proved to contain an African text 
by the notable agreement between its readings and those 
of Cyprian, Augustine, and the Auctor De Promissionibus.® 
The manuscript contains chaps. iil. 2-ἰν. 18, v. 23-vii. 2; 
vii. 42-viili. 2; ix. 4-23; xiv. 5-23; xvii. 34—xviii. 19; 
Xxilil. 8-24; xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13, besides portions of the 


1 Comparison between & and e in Sanday, op. cit., pp. Ixvii-lxxxv; Hans 
von Soden, op. cit., 184-221. 

2 Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala (Texts and Studies, vol. iv. No. 3 
[Cambr. 1896], pp. 35-40), with which compare my reconstruction from 
Augustiue’s citations in Journal of Theological Studies, xii. (1910-11), 

» 155. 

8.7.6. the Evangelium Gatianum (formerly of 8. Gatien of Tours, now at 
Paris) (ed. J. M. Heer, Freiburg i. Br. 1910). Cf. Burkitt in Journal of 
Theological Studies, xi. (1909-10), p. 608; Lawlor’s Book of Mulling, pp. 
134 ff. ; the corrector of the European ἢ. 

4 Revue Bénédictine for 1910, pp. 273-324 and later. See also Rev. G. M. 
Youngman in Amer. Journ. Theol., xiv. (1910), p. 625. 

5 Cf. Corssen, Der Africanische Text der Acta Apostolorum (progr. Berlin, 
1892); Monceaux, op. cit., p. 152; Hans von Soden, op. cit., pp. 221-42. 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 839 


Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, which will be con- 
sidered in their proper places. The MS., of which this is 
the original writing, was written in the fifth century, 
either in Africa, or elsewhere after an African model.! The 
upper writing (saec. vii.) is Isidore De Mundo. 


‘African’ MS. of Catholic Epistles 


h. The same MS. contains the following fragments of 
the Catholic Epistles: First Peter iv. 17-Second Peter 
ii. 7, and First John i. 8-iii. 20. The presence of Second 
Peter, an epistle apparently unknown to Tertullian and 
Cyprian, suggests that h represents a rather late form of 
African text in this part, and internal evidence supports 
the view: for example, in First John iii. 17 the agape of 
Cyprian’s Bible appears as caritas.? 


‘African’ MS. of Pauline Epistles 


r. A fragmentary MS. written in the fifth or sixth cen- 
tury, now preserved at Munich, containing portions of 
Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephes- 
ians, Philippians, First Timothy and Hebrews, represents 
the type of text habitually used by St. Augustine for this 
part of the Bible.? 


‘ African’ MS. of the Apocalypse of John 


h, the same MS. as above indicated, contains chaps. i. 1-- 
11. 1, viii. 7-ix. 12, xi. 16—-xii. 14, xiv. 15-xvi. 5 only of 
the Apocalypse. Its African character is proved by what 
it shares with African writers, Cyprian, Tyconius, and 
Primasius. The last provides a complete African text of 
early type amid his commentary, a compilation of the 
sixth century. 

1 Traube, Nomina Sacra, pp. 191, 200-1. 

2 Cf. Berger, Le Palimpseste de Fleury, p. 18; Burkitt, Old Latin and the 
Italia, p. 58 


32 Cor. v. 1-12, 14-vi. 3 in Revue Bénédictine, xxviii. (1911), 221-7 
(G. Morin). 


40 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


Of the early history of Latin texts on the northern side 
of the Mediterranean we know even less than of the African. 
Not a single certain quotation is found earlier than Nova- 
tian, the contemporary of Cyprian. It may be that the 
text, which for purposes of convenience we call ‘ African,’ 
really took its rise in Europe: we cannot say. The 
question, also, whether the texts we call African are of 
quite independent origin from those we call European is 
one that has been the subject of a good deal of dispute. 
On the one hand, Professor Burkitt speaks of the European 
text as ‘a continuous development, or rather degeneration, 
from the African standard,’ while on the other, Professor 
Von Soden thinks that the two had a separate* origin.! 
The fundamental unity of European texts is shown by 
their agreement in rendering εἰ δὲ μή[γε] by sin autem in 
Luke x. 6 and xiii. 9 only, whereas in the other nine places 
they are almost unanimous for alioguin:* there the 
Africans read δὲ guo minus. Yet there is a notable unity 
in corruption in Mark ix. 15, where both African and 
European have gaudentes (προσχέροντες) (an error for 
προστρέχοντες). 


European Gospel MSS. 


a. The premier European manuscript of the Gospels, 
fittingly if accidentally known by the first letter of the 
alphabet, is the Codex Vercellensis, preserved in a glass 
case at Vercelli in North Italy. The writing is in double 
columns, as is usual in the older Latin MSS., with twenty- 
four lines to the column. It is an old tradition that the 
manuscript was written by the very hand of St. Eusebius, 
Bishop of Vercelli, who was martyred in 371, and there is 
nothing to disprove this tradition. As a sacred relic, it 
has suffered much from the kisses of worshippers through- 


1 Cf. Burkitt in Encycl. Bibl. col. 4993 ; Hermann von Soden, Die Schriften 
des Neuen Testaments, i. pp. 1545-50. 

2 Burkitt, Old Latin and the Itala, p. 41, who also gives other illustra- 
tions. 


tv.| THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 41 


out the centuries, and was recently removed to Rome for 
a time to be repaired. Next to k, it is the most important 
Old-Latin manuscript of the Gospels. Its age proves that 
its text cannot have been in any way contaminated with 
the Vulgate, as the latter was not issued till 383-4. The 
real antiquity of its type of text is proved by other argu- 
ments also. Novatian in the middle of the third century 
in Rome employed such a text as a, and in St. John’s 
Gospel Lucifer of Cagliari (Sardinia), a friend of Eusebius, 
generally quotes a text agreeing with α.1 Further, St. 
Jerome himself, at least for the Gospel of Luke, regularly 
cited a text practically identical with a, though he must 
have had many different types at his disposal.2 The 
fragmentary manuscript known as n (Chur, S. Gallen) 
(saec. iv.-v.) is, except in St. John,? a sister MS. toa. We 
have thus traces of five different copies of this type. 

The type contains more ‘ African’ readings than any 
other European MS., and it probably represents an alto- 
gether earlier stage of the European Latin than 6 (and 
others). The manuscript ” supplies lacunae in Mark xv.- 
xvi. and Luke xi. 11-29, where a is now defective. There 
is a very considerable difference between the a n type, 
and that which is provided by the remaining Old-Latin MSS. 

ὃ. The Codex Veronensis, known as ὦ, is a purple-stained 
MS., with silver, and occasionally gold, writing, written in 
the fifth or sixth century, and preserved, probably con- 
tinuously from that date to ours, at Verona.* It contains 
the Gospels in the usual order in Old-Latin MSS., Matthew, 
John, Luke, Mark,® save that the following parts are 
lacking: Matt. i. 1-11, xv. 12-22, xxiii. 18-27, John vii. 44-- 
villi. 12, Luke xix. 26-xxi. 29, Mark xiv. 6l-end. Thus a 


1 Old-Latin Biblical Texts, ii. p. 140; Burkitt, op. cit., p.15f. Yet John 
vi. 26-27 ap. Nouat. cib. Jud. c. 5 (pp. 236, 9 ff.) is far from a. 

2 See the present writer in the British Congregationalist for 9th June 1910, 
Journal of Theological Studies for July 1911, pp. 583-92, and H. C. Hoskier, 
The Golden Latin Gospels, etc. (New York, 1910), pp. xxvii-xxix, cxiv. 

3 In St. John 7 is secondary as compared with a. 

4 It passed in the seventeenth century into the Chapter Library of the 
Cathedral, having been formerly in the possession of the Saibante family 
(Buchanan’s edition of ὃ, p. vii). 

5 The apostles being placed first, 


42 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


manuscript, which originally contained 418 leaves, now 
contains only 393, of which seven are illegible, because the 
ink has eaten away the written parts. The writing is in 
double columns of eighteen lines, each containing on an 
average ten or eleven letters. ‘Two correctors of the MS. 
substituted Vulgate readings on occasion for the original 
readings of the MS., and did so with such neatness that the 
fact escaped notice, until the Rev. E. S. Buchanan, the 
latest editor, discovered it. His edition (Clarendon Press, 
1911), for this and other reasons, antiquates those of his 
predecessors.! This discovery is of consequence in esti- 
mating the character of 6, as Professor Burkitt considers 
it to represent the type which Jerome used as the basis 
of the Vulgate. Whether this be so or not, 6 occupies a 
kind of central position amongst the European Old-Latin 
MSS., as the others all resemble ὃ more closely than they 
resemble each other.2, The type of text present in ὦ is 
found in Niceta of Remesiana (in Dacia), the author of 
the Te Deum (flor. 400),? in the ‘ Ambrosiaster,’ resident 
at Rome about 375,4 and, so far as Luke is concerned, in 
Lucifer of Cagliari.® 

d is the symbol for the Latin side of D (Codex Bezae), 
described in the last chapter. It does not in the same 
sense as the others represent an uniform Latin version, as 
it has been much corrected by its own Greek. It never- 
theless in great part preserves a translation which is really 
old, as it has points of contact with readings of k and of a, 
where all other authorities differ: certain elements in d, 
then, cannot be of later date than the first half of the 
third century, and may be earlier still. 

ff (or ff.) is the symbol for Codex Corbeiensis (Paris, 


1 See his introduction, pp. xiv-x 
7 a H. J. White, Old- nae Biblical Texts iii. (Oxford, 1888), p. 


3 "Burkitt j in Burn’s edition of Niceta (Cambr. 1905), pp. exlvi-cxlix. 

4 Souter, Study of Ambrosiaster (Cambr. 1905), pp. 205 f. He had Luke 
xxiii. 34, which has now been found to be in the first hand of 6. The wording 
does not exactly agree. 

5 Old-Latin Biblical Texts, ii. p. 140. 

6 Pp. 25 ff. 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 43 


Bibliothéque Nationale 17,225), of the fifth century, which 
has double columns of twenty-four lines each, and contains 
the Gospels except Matt. i. 1-xi. 16, John xvii. 15-xviii. 9, 
xx. 23-xxi. 8, Luke ix. 45-x. 20, xi. 45-xii. 6 (and some 
other parts lost through slighter mutilation) on its 192 
surviving leaves. 

q. Codex latinus Monacensis 6224, formerly of the abbey 
of Freising in Bavaria, was written by a scribe Valerianus 
in Italy 1 in the seventh century in a half-uncial hand, the 
characters of which are large and clumsy. It contains 
on 251 leaves, with double columns (containing twenty 
lines each), the four Gospels, with the exception of Matt. 
11, 15-iv. 23, v. 25-vi. 4, vi. 28—vii. 8; John x. 11 -xii. 38, 
xxl. 8-20; Luke xxiii. 23-35, xxiv. 11-39; Mark i. 7-21, 
xv. 5-36. When complete the manuscript must have 
contained 273 leaves. The special interest of qg to the 
textual critic arises from the fact that, though it be an 
Old-Latin manuscript of the European class, it presup- 
poses not infrequently a different Greek text from that 
which underlies the other Old-Latin manuscripts, whether 
*‘ African’ or European. In its vocabulary gq is close to 
the average type of European text, that which we find in 
6, but in its underlying text it frequently differs. The 
character of this MS. is, then, best explained by the theory 
that it is an European text (like ὃ) which has been modified 
according to a Greek MS. with an up-to-date text.? 

f. The MS. known as f, at Brescia, a MS. on purple- 
stained vellum with silver writing, may be mentioned here, 
though it is not an Old-Latin European MS. It was 
written in the sixth century, and contains all the Gospels 
except Mark xii. 5-xili. 32, xiv. 70-xvi. 20. There can be 
no doubt that it represents the Latin side of a bilingual 
codex, which had Gothic in one column and Latin in the 
other, and it does not appear impossible that such a Gospel 
codex belonged to a recension made by St. Jerome’s 


1 Traube, Nomina Sacra, p. 190. It may have been written at Bobbio. 
2 In addition to White’s edition (Old- Latin Biblical Texts, No. iii.), cf. De 
Bruyne in the Revue Bénédictine, xxviii. (1911), pp. 75-80. 


44 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


correspondents Sunnias and Fretelas+ early in the fifth 
century. A fifth-century fragment of such a bilingual 
codex was found a year or two ago near the ancient Antinoe 
in Egypt, and is now at Giessen, the Gothic occupying the 
place of honour on the left. The two authorities f and 
giess agree very closely. Such copies were in use in the 
Gothic kingdom in North Italy, and Brescia was a great 
city of this kingdom. The construction of this type of 
text appears to have been carried out on this wise. An 
Old-Latin MS. was taken and partly corrected to the 
Vulgate: it was then altered to suit the readings and 
renderings of the Gothic. This is a much better way of 
accounting for the fact that the MS. f is for ninety per 
cent. of its text identical with the Vulgate, than to conclude 
with Bishop Wordsworth and Professor White that f 
represents the type of text used by Jerome as the basis of 
the Vulgate in the Gospels. 


European MSS. of Acts 


d and e are the Latin sides of D (Codex Bezae) and E 
(Codex Laudianus), described in the last chapter. 

gig. The manuscript styled gigas (from its great size) 
was written in Bohemia in the thirteenth century, but 
represents a fourth-century text, as is clear from the fact 
that this is exactly the type used by Lucifer of Cagliari (in 
Sardinia) (+ 370-1),2 ‘ Ambrosiaster’ (resident in Rome) 
(flor. 375),4 and Niceta of Remesiana (in Dacia) (flor. 400).5 
Moreover, Jerome himself cites this type of text, on occa- 
sion, at least,* though he certainly did not use it as the 
basis of the Vulgate.’ 


1 A long letter replying to textual questions touching the Psalms, addressed 
by these Goths, is Hier. Hpist. evi. (403 a.D.). 

2 Burkitt, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. i. p. 181. For the origin 
and character of the Gothic, see below, p. 69 Ὁ. 

3 Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Latine (ed. Wordsworth 
and White), ii. p. ix. 

4 Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 207. 

5 Burkitt ap. Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, pp. cl-cliii. 

6 Cf. Epist. XI. i. § 2 (p. 812 Hilberg). Vallarsi dates the letter 384. 

7 Cf. Wordsworth-White, loc. cit, 


1v.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 45 


p. A small manuscript of the New Testament (Paris, 
321), written in North Spain or South France early in the 
thirteenth century, and formerly preserved at Perpignan, 
contains a text of Acts which is Old-Latin from i. 1-xiii. 5, 
and from xxviii. 16-31, while the rest of the book is Vulgate. 
The Old-Latin part has points of contact with the quota- 
tions in the homilies of Gregory of Elvira (saec. iv.) : the fact 
that Augustine’s readings often agree with this and other 
‘Spanish’ texts, where Augustine’s special type ἢ (see 
above) is not extant, suggests that the Spanish texts are a 
revision of the ‘ African,’ which is a priori probable. 


European MSS. of the Pauline Epistles 


d (otherwise d, or dPaul) represents the Latin side of 
the Codex Claromontanus (D), previously described. The 
Latin is not an exact translation of its accompanying 
Greek, but, except where it has been harmonised with 
the Vulgate in the longest epistles, represents exactly the 
text used by Lucifer of Cagliari (in Sardinia) (7 371).? 

g is the Latin side of a bilingual related to D and known 
as G (Codex Boernerianus, of the end of the ninth century, 
at Dresden). It has many alternative interlinear readings, 
one of the two being Vulgate. The Old-Latin readings 
probably represent a fourth-century text, as they not 
infrequently agree with the text of the Pauline Epistles 
contained in the commentary by the ‘ Ambrosiaster,’ who 
flourished in Rome about 375. 


European MSS. of the Catholic Epistles 


ff. This MS. contains the Epistle of James alone of 
the Catholic Epistles. First in the extensive Benedictine 
library at Corbie, near Amiens, it was transferred with 
many other books to the sister house of St. Germain des 


1 With certain traces of Old-Latin here and there: cf. Buchanan’s edition 
in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. xii. (1910-11), pp. 497-534. 

2 Souter, Jowrnal of Theological Studies, vol. vi. (1904-5), pp. 240 ff., 
following Burkitt, Hncy. Bibl., vol. iv. p. 4996. 


46 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT {cH. 


Prés, Paris, and during the troublous times of the Revolu- 
tion it was taken with a considerable selection of other 
St. Germain MSS. to St. Petersburg, where it now is. 
The MS. was written in the ninth or tenth century,! but it 
represents a much older text, possibly as old as the third 
century. It has some readings unique (almost freakish) 
in their character: for example, in chap. ii. 25 it has 
exploratores ex XII tribus filiorum Israhel, the last five words 
being found nowhere else. But on occasion it is in solitary 
agreement with the Greek MS. B, and in such places there 
is a strong probability that the reading is right, as there is 
no general kinship between the two texts. The MS. has 
the remarkable colophon, ‘ Here ends the Epistle of James 
the son of Zebedee,’ whereas, of course, if the Epistle is 
apostolic at all, it can hardly belong to any other than 
James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19). One reading 
in this MS. is shared by a quotation in Chromatius of 
Aquileia (+ about 407), but this is too slender a basis on 
which to define the locality of its use. It would appear, 
like the following not unrelated MS., to represent a de- 
generate type of ‘ African’ text, though we have not felt 
at liberty to class it definitely with the African texts. 

m. This symbol is used, not to indicate a MS. of one 
particular book or group of books of Scripture, but to 
represent a work called ‘Speculum’ (mirror for conduct), 
wrongly attributed in manuscripts to St. Augustine.? This 
book consists of many verses of Scripture arranged topically, 
and it might have been introduced earlier, but for the fact 
that its text in the Catholic Epistles is more interesting 
than it is elsewhere : for there it agrees almost ad litteram 
with the quotations of Priscillian, the first person put to 
death by the Church (f 385). For instance, James, chap. 
v. 1-3 (m)=Priscillian, ed. Schepss, p. 17, ll. 9-14. Before 
Schepss had discovered the tractates of Priscillian, Dr. 

1 The late Dr. Traube dated it ninth, Dr. Holder (Karlsruhe) dates it 
tenth. Cf. also A. Staerk, Les Manuscrits Latins de Saint-Pétersbourg (St. 
Petersburg, 1910), vol. ii. Plate Lrx. 


2 There is also a genuine Speculum, prepared by Augustine and issued 
after his death, but in that work the quotations are in the Vulgate text. 


iv.| THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 47 


Sanday had called this type of text degenerate African. 
We may now, therefore, conclude that Spain got some, at 
least, of its biblical texts from Africa. 


European MS. of the Apocalypse 


gig. The same MS. which is described above as contain- 
ing an Old-Latin text of Acts, contains also an Old-Latin 
text of the Apocalypse. It is, however, extremely close 
to the Vulgate, and we must either conclude that Jerome’s 
revision in the Apocalypse was the most perfunctory of all, 
or that the gigas MS. has here become seriously contami- 
nated with the Vulgate, and has thus lost many of the 
original characteristics of its type. The former view is 
probably to be preferred. As to the locality where this 
type was in use, perhaps we can infer, from the fact that 
the text gives the remarkable rendering aeramento turino 
(incense-copper) for χαλκολιβάνῳ in chap. ii. 18—shared 
with Priscillian of Spain and ‘ Ambrosiaster,’ who seems 
to have had Spanish connexions,! alone among ancient 
writers, so far as I know—that this kind of text was current 
in Spain. If it be the type used by Jerome in the Apo- 
calypse, however, it was presumably known also in Italy. 


This list may serve to give some idea of the characte 
of the more important surviving documents of the Old- 
Latin versions of the New Testament books. 


ὃ 2. Latin (‘ VULGATE’) 


Chronologically the Vulgate,? so called since the early 
Middle Ages, should give place to some other versions, 
but it is convenient to consider it at this point. It was not 
a fresh translation from the Greek, but a revision of exist- 
ing Latin texts (or perhaps of one text only for each book 

1 See my edition of Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testa- 
mentti CXXVIT, (Vindob. 1908), pp. xxii, xxiv. 

2 Jerome himself uses vulgata, etc., to indicate the most prevalent form 


of Latin text in his own time, in the case of any part of the Bible with which 
he happens at the time to be dealing. 


48 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


or group of books in the New Testament), in the way of 
correcting mistranslations, substituting occasionally as 
foundation better Greek MSS. than those at the back of 
the Old-Latin, and purifying the Latinity to a more 
cultured standard. It owes its origin to Damasus, Bishop 
of Rome from 366 to 384. This prelate, whose wide 
interests made his episcopate one of the most notable, 
was moved by the bewildering variety of texts existing 
over the Latin-speaking world to desire a revision, which 
should be superior in character to any existing Latin trans- 
lation, and should eventually supersede them all. He 
therefore commissioned his secretary, Eusebius Sofronius 
Hieronymus, known to us as St. Jerome, to undertake 
this revision. Jerome probably undertook it against his 
will,t but he was already ambitious to succeed Damasus, 
and no doubt considered it advisable to please his chief 
in all things. 

It is only in the case of the Gospels that we learn any- 
thing of his work from himself. In a prefatory letter of 
surpassing interest, addressed to Damasus in the year 
383, he tells us the circumstances of the publication. 
Damasus’ chief purpose was that the Latin should be 
revised according to the ‘true Greek text,’ the judge of 
what this true text was to be Jerome himself. Jerome, 
mindful of the strong opposition which his work was sure 
to arouse, made as little change as possible. He altered 
the Western order of the Gospels to that familiar to us, 
and regular in Greek MSS., and he removed mistakes 
occurring in the Latin copies by comparing them with 
‘old’ Greek copies. But he confined the corrections to 
such as affected the sense, leaving the rest of the text as 
it was. At least so he says, but there can be no doubt 
that the able pupil of the great grammarian Donatus im- 
proved the style also here and there. He also equipped 
the Gospels with the Eusebian ‘Canons,’ which he had 
found in Greek copies. These canons enabled one to see 
at a glance in how many Gospels a particular section was 


1 He uses the word cogis of Damasus’ commission to him. 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 49 


to be found. Sensible, also, of the harmonisation which 
had taken place between different Gospels, especially in 
Western MSS., he endeavoured to correct this defect by 
restoring the ipsissima verba of each Evangelist. 

The question what type of text he chose as the basis 
of his revision, assuming that he used only one type, is 
answered in different ways by different critics. Hort, 
Wordsworth, and their collaborators were of opinion that 
the type chosen was that of Codex Brixianus (f) above 
described. ‘This MS. is ninety per cent. the same as the 
Vulgate, and in the remaining ten per cent. of the Gospels 
the Vulgate represents a nearer approach to the readings 
of Greek MSS. like 8 and B. But we prefer, with Burkitt, 
to explain the almost unique character of f as above, and 
to consider that the type of text used by St. Jerome was 
a real Old-Latin type, such a MS. as ὃ, with the qualifica- 
tion that in Luke it may have been a MS. almost identical 
with a. (This last suggestion, which is my own, is due to 
the fact that St. Jerome is convicted of using a text practi- 
cally identical with ὦ in a very long quotation of Luke, 
chap. xv. 11-52, in a letter addressed to Damasus himself 
in the very year in which the Vulgate was issued.!) In 
that case Jerome will have used Greek MSS. of the Syrian 
(Antiochian) type as well as of the Alexandrian. His work 
would thus deserve the title novum opus. 

One or two examples of Jerome’s method of working 
may be given, first in the matter of reading, the more 
important, and then in rendering. All the Old-Latin 
authorities (except f and φ 3) omit porro unum est necessarium 
(ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία) in Luke x. 42, but Jerome has inserted 
them from a Greek MS. (or Greek MSS.) of his own time.® 
Again, in Luke xxiv. 36, the words ‘ Peace be unto you’ 
(εἰρήνη ὑμῖν) are absent from all unrevised Old-Latin 
texts, but are found in the Vulgate: our oldest Greek 


1 Epist. 21. See Journal of Theological Studies, xii. (1910-11), pp. 583-92, 
and above, p. 41. 


noose the eee differs from the Vulgate (cf. Burkitt in J. 7. S., xi. 
8 Our b Bost G oask MSS, to show this reading are A and Οὗ, 


D 


50 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


authority for them is κα. In matters of rendering 
some words are really test words. Caerimonia, probably 
because of its pagan flavour, is absent from all Old-Latin 
texts, but it is freely employed in the Vulgate. Porro is 
never found in any Old-Latin text, but is used in the 
Vulgate not infrequently as a rendering of δέ, where the 
Old-Latin employed autem. ores is very rare in Old- 
Latin biblical texts, which prefer ostia or tanuae as a 
rendering of θύραι. 3 Romphaea has been left by Jerome 
once in the Apocalypse (ii. 12), but he has removed this 
Old-Latin rendering everywhere else in the Bible. 

These instances are for the most part concerned with 
the Gospels. In the case of Acts Wordsworth and White 
have not been able to identify any Old-Latin text so close 
to the Vulgate as to deserve to be considered its basis, but 
they have shown that Jerome had a Greek MS. not un- 
related to αὶ and B which he used in the course of his 
revision. In the Pauline Epistles he may have employed 
as the basis of his work the text which is used by ‘ Ambrosi- 
aster ’ as the foundation of his commentary on the Epistles.’ 
In the Apocalypse there can be little doubt that MS. gigas 
represents the type employed, if it be really Old-Latin 
throughout.4 

The after-history of the Vulgate is interesting, and is 
parallel to the history of the reception of new English 
versions in modern times. No doubt it was adopted in 
the church of Rome from the first, but it was not to be 
expected that Damasus’ successors would be so interested 
in it as to maintain it in a special position. As a matter 
of fact, we know that even in Pope Gregory’s time (the 
second half of the sixth century) the Jerome revision and 
the Old-Latin were employed in the church of Rome 
indiscriminately. After about 398 Augustine employed 
the Gospel part in the church of Hippo Regius, of which 
he was bishop, and in all his works after that date long 


1 For other examples see Burkitt in J. 7. S., xi. (1909-10), pp. 450 ff. 

2 These three instances are borrowed from Burkitt, op. cit., pp. 262, 454, 
3 A. Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, pp. 212-57, especially p. 214. 

4 See above, p. 47. 


Iv.] THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 51 


quotations are cited from the Vulgate.1 About 409 
Pelagius in Rome used the Vulgate text as the basis of 
his commentary on these Epistles.2_ But Old-Latin texts 
continued to be employed almost everywhere. For 
example, Augustine continued to use Old-Latin copies 
for the rest of the New Testament outside the Gospels. 
Primasius of Hadrumetum, in Africa, even in the sixth 
century employed a very old African type of text for his 
comments on the Apocalypse. His later contemporary, 
Cassiodorus, in South Italy, based his Complexiones on 
Old-Latin texts of Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, 
and Apocalypse, though he had a complete Vulgate Bible 
in his possession. Such instances might be greatly multi- 
plied. When we have critical texts of all the post- Vulgate 
Christian writers, it will be possible to write a very inter- 
esting book on the fortunes of Old-Latin and Vulgate texts 
in the early Middle Ages. In fact, the supremacy of the 
Vulgate was not assured till the ninth century, and it was 
not till the Council of Trent (1546) that the Vulgate became 
the standard for the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. 
This situation is reflected in our MSS. The familiarity 
the scribes possessed with Old-Latin texts caused endless 
contamination in Vulgate MSS., and successive attempts 
were made to revise it into a state corresponding more or 
less to its primitive purity. The late Samuel Berger, a 
French Protestant, wrote learnedly and illuminatively on 
these.2 About the end of the eighth century Alcuin of 
York was commissioned by Charlemagne to make a revision 
for the use of his kingdom. This he completed in the first 
year of the ninth century by the help of good MSS. from 
Northumbria. His contemporary Theodulf of Orléans 
revised the text from Spanish MSS. The work done in 
the University of Paris in the thirteenth century resulted 
in a purification of the text, which became widely known 
through the earliest printed editions. It was in that 


1 Burkitt, Old Latin and the ltala, pp. 72 ff., etc., following and amplifying 
the conclusions of the eighteenth-century expert Dom Sabatier. 

2 A. Souter, The Commentary of Pelagius, etc. (London, 1907), pp. 17 f. 

3 Histoire dela Vulgate, etc. (Paris, 1893). 


52 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [oH. 


century that Stephen Langton, afterwards Archbishop of 
Canterbury, divided the text into the chapters which we 
now use. The earliest important effort of the printing- 
press is the forty-two line Bible (double columns) which 
Johannes Gutenberg printed at Mainz about 1450 to 1455. 
The editions most interesting to the Roman Catholic 
appeared—that of Pope Sixtus v. in 1590, and that of 
Pope Clement vim. in 1592, which superseded the former. 
This last is the standard Roman Catholic text, which is 
not nearly in the state in which it left the hands of St. 
Jerome, but the differences are mostly of a trifling char- 
acter, textual, and not seriously affecting dogma. The 
present Pope Pius x. appointed a Commission of Bene- 
dictines in 1908 to undertake a fresh edition, under the 
presidency of Abbot Gasquet, Superior of the English 
Congregation. This work is proceeding on a vast scale 
and on thoroughly scientific principles. 

The question of the identification of Vulgate MSS., and 
the other question of the estimation of their relative values, 
are both difficult to answer. The presence of Jerome’s 
prefatory letter and the Eusebian Canons and Sections 
serves as a sufficient means of identification of Gospel MSS., 
but we have no such helps to the identification of manu- 
scripts of the other parts of the New Testament. For 
these no Hieronymian prologues are extant, and indeed 
it is rather a curious fact that in Gospel MSS. of the Vulgate 
we generally find Priscillian’s prologues, and in MSS. of 
the Pauline Epistles in the Vulgate we are provided with 
Marcionite prologues and chapter headings, while in some 
MSS. of the Vulgate Acts the prologues are Donatist. 
The occurrence of these extraneous growths on the Catholic 
work of Jerome is one of the oddest things in literary 
history. But their presence does not serve to stamp a 
MS. as Vulgate, as they are in all cases Old-Latin apparatus, 
which it was found convenient to transfer to Vulgate MSS. 
In the Gospels a MS. is Vulgate in proportion to its lack 
of readings which we know definitely to be Old-Latin, 
but in other parts of the New Testament we do not possess 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC δ8 


the standards of comparison to the same extent, and there 
will perhaps be much debate yet ere this matter is settled. 
The textual critic and the philologist will both have much 
to say. The existence of really mixed texts, neither wholly 
Old-Latin nor wholly Vulgate, only serves to complicate 
the problem. 

What are esteemed to be the best MSS. of the Vulgate 
Gospels, containing the text as nearly as possible in the 
form in which Jerome issued it, are connected with South 
Italy and Northumbria. One, a complete manuscript of 
the New Testament, written about 545 for Bishop Victor 
of Capua, contains the Gospels in the Vulgate text, but 
arranged in the form of Tatian’s Diatessaron. This manu- 
script was brought from Italy to the north of England 
either by Benedict Biscop, founder of the Abbey of St. Paul, 
Jarrow-on-Tyne (681 or 682), or by Ceolfrid, whom he 
appointed Abbot of the monastery. It was afterwards 
given to Boniface along with the ‘ Laudian’ Acts, and con- 
tains some notes by his hand. He deposited it at Fulda 
in Germany, where it still is. The second manuscript was 
itself either written at Jarrow or Wearmouth to the order 
of Abbot Ceolfrid. It is one of three ‘ Pandects,’ that is, 
complete Bibles, which he ordered to be written. He 
designed two of them for these monasteries respectively. 
But the third was to be given to the Holy Father himself. 
In 715 Ceolfrid started with this manuscript, but died at 
Langres, France, on his way to Rome. ‘The manuscript, 
however, was duly conveyed to Rome by Ceolfrid’s com- 
panions, and presented to the Pope. It later found its 
way to the monastery of Monte Amiata (whence its name, 
Amiatinus), and thence to Florence, Laurentian Library, 
whose greatest treasure it is, being one of the largest MSS. 
in the world. The two copies made for Wearmouth and 
Jarrow have perished in whole or in part.? 

Clearly all three were made from an original which had 
been brought from Italy, and indeed ‘ Amiatinus’ was 


1 See C. H. Turner’s Jter Dunelmense in Journal of Theological Studies, 
vol. x. (1908-9), pp. 529-44. 


δ4 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH 


written by an Italian scribe, probably out of compliment 
to a Pope, who would have found ‘ insular’ script offensive 
and unreadable. The original of the three we know, too, 
to have been connected with no less a person than Cassio- 
dorus, of Vivarium, South Italy, the retired Prime Minister 
of Theodoric, for the MS. contains prefatory matter which 
is indisputably Cassiodorian. Other MSS. of English 
provenance preserve the same Gospel text entirely or 
partially. 

The ground for the pre-eminence assigned to these MSS. 
in the Gospels—for elsewhere it would seem that their 
text may not be so good—is the absence of specifically 
Old-Latin readings. The text of Wordsworth and White 
is based principally on the consensus of these MSS., though 
they have collated many others. Improvement of their 
edition of the Gospels is only possible here and _ there, 
on the basis of collation of very early copies overlooked 
by them, combined with quotations in critically edited 
writings of the two centuries succeeding the original issue 
of the Vulgate by St. Jerome. The publication early in 
1912 of a tentative critical text of the entire Vulgate New 
Testament by Professor White, under the joint auspices 
of the Clarendon Press and the British and Foreign Bible 
Society, is a notable event. 


SYRIAC VERSIONS 
§ 1. Tatran’s DIATESSARON 


The early history of Syriac versions is a subject about 
which experts have differed considerably, and one who 
is no expert will refrain from any foolish attempt to point 
the right way. The view of Professor Burkitt will be 
adopted here, as that which seems to the outsider to be 
the more rational—namely, that the four Gospels were 
earlier known to the Assyrian Church as interwoven to 
form a connected narrative (διὰ τεσσάρων) than as four 
separate books. This is suggested by the title of the four 


Iv.| THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC δ 


separate Gospels when they first emerge in the history of 
the Church of the Assyrians, Evangelion da-Mepharreshé, 
‘The Gospel of the Separated Ones.’ No one would be 
likely to speak of our four Gospels in that way who had 
not been earlier accustomed to use them in the combined 
form. 

Tatian, an Assyrian Christian, face to face with the fact 
that the Synoptic Gospels contain so much that is repre- 
sented twice and three times over, conceived the idea of 
combining all that was contained in the four Gospels, 
without repeating any part common to two or more, into 
one connected narrative. He therefore took a Greek text 
of the Gospels of a type current during the third quarter 
of the second century in Rome, where he was resident at 
the time, and rearranged it, as we should say, with scissors 
and paste. Whether the resulting compilation was ever 
translated into Latin direct we cannot say. Certainly 
Victor of Capua, as we have seen in the last section, 
arranged the Gospels in the Vulgate text ‘ diatessarically,’ 
but he may have done this direct from Tatian’s Greek, 
and not through the medium of a Latin translation. This 
work of Victor has, in the circumstances, only got a value 
as to Tatian’s arrangement, not at all as to his text. 

Tatian himself, probably on his return to his native 
country, about 170, translated the resulting Greek compila- 
tion into Syriac, the language of the Euphrates valley, and 
this translation became the regular version in the use of 
the churches of Edessa and other places in that country. 
The Syriac language was akin to, but not identical with, 
the Aramaic spoken by our Lord. Tatian’s Syriac Diates- 
saron remained in use till the end of the fourth century 
and even the early part of the fifth. It is regularly quoted 
by Syriac Fathers—for example, by the greatest of them 
all, St. Ephraim, who died in 373. It is, in fact, from the 
commentary which St. Ephraim wrote on the Diatessaron 
that we recover almost all the reliable part of the text of 
Tatian’s work that has survived, for the original in its 
original form has perished. It was at some date in the 


56 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cn. 


fifth century or later brought into textual harmony with 
the Peshitta (see below), but even this form has perished. 
All that we have are two manuscripts of an Arabic trans- 
lation, made by a monk in the eleventh century, of a MS. 
of this ‘ Peshittised’ version. Here, again, the arrange- 
ment is preserved, as in Victor, but hardly any traces of 
the original text. It may be safely said that the original 
Greek of Tatian’s book is a more desirable possession for 
the textual critic of the Gospels than almost anything else 
yet undiscovered: the Syriac in its original form would 
be only less valuable. 

The type of text used as the basis of the Diatessaron was 
what we should call ‘ Western,’ but it is rather closer to 
the geographically Western, the ‘ Western’ of Codex Bezae 
and the European Old-Latin, than it is to the text behind 
the Old-Syriac version, which falls to be considered next. 
For instance, the Diatessaron contained a reference to 
the great light at the baptism (Matt. iii. 16), also found in 
Justin and two European Old-Latin MSS., but not in the 
Old-Syriac. In some cases the Diatessaron stands alone : 
for example, in Matt. xvii. 26, it, along with Greek minuscule 
MS. 713 of the twelfth or thirteenth century, only has 
the interpolation after υἱοί : ‘Simon said to him, “‘ Yea!” 
Jesus said to him, “ Give thou also to him as a stranger.” ’ 
But there are readings (especially renderings) common to 
the Diatessaron and the Old-Syriac not all of equal signifi- 
cance. Both are ‘ Western’ texts, and some relationship 
between the two is to be expected. In certain cases an 
influence of the one upon the other seems probable, and 
is just what one would anticipate. 

Hermann von Soden has assigned a very important 
place to the Diatessaron. He argues that every departure 
from his supposed J-H-K text that is found at an earlier 
date than the constitution of that text, is due to the 
influence of the Diatessaron. That harmonising, conscious 
or unconscious, played a great part in ancient as in modern 
citations, cannot be disputed. But it is impossible to 
prove so great an influence of the Diatessaron, seeing that 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 57 


its original form has disappeared. Also, if it had had 
such powerful influence as he says, it is hardly probable 
that it should have left hardly any trace in the Graeco- 
Roman world ;} the fact that the author was a heretic is 
not a sufficient reason for its disappearance. 


§ 2. THz OLp-SyRIAc 


But if the Assyrian Church regularly read the Gospels 
in a Diatessaron, there was nevertheless some interest in 
them in separate form as originally written, at least among 
scholars. Two manuscripts of a translation different from 
any of the others have come down to us. There is by no 
means perfect agreement between their texts, but they are 
nevertheless manuscripts of one version, which is now 
known as the Old-Syriac, but was in the days when it was 
used known as the Hvangelion da-Mepharreshé, ‘'The Gospel 
of the Separated Ones, —in other words, the separated 
Gospels. The older MS. is a palimpsest, of which the 
original writing, the text of the Gospels in Syriac, was 
written in the fourth century probably. The MS., pre- 
served in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, 
was there discovered in 1892 by Mrs. Lewis of Cambridge, 
England, who was then in the company of her sister, Mrs. 
Gibson. It is thus known as the ‘ Sinaitic ’ or the ‘ Lewis’ 
Syriac. Since then it has been repeatedly photographed, 
transcribed, and examined (twice by the help of a re- 
agent). All, or almost all, that is humanly possible has 
now been done to make its readings accessible to the 
world. The upper writing of the palimpsest belongs to 
A.D. 778, and the task of reading the original writing is one 
of excessive difficulty at times. The manuscript now 
contains Matthew i. l-vi. 10, viii. 3-xvi. 15, xvii. 11]-- 
xx. 24, xxi. 20-xxvili. 7; Mark i. 12-44, ii. 2l-iv. 17, iv. 
41-v. 26; vi. 5-Luke i. 16, i. 38—-v. 28, vi. 12-end ; John i. 
25-47, ii. 16-iv. 37, v. 6-25, v. 46-xvili. 31, xix. 40-—xxi. 25. 


1 There is some affinity between the Diatessaron and the Old-Latin MS. 
g (Matthew). 


58 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cuH. 


The other manuscript, written later, probably in the 
first half of the fifth century, was discovered in the great 
library of the Convent of St. Mary the Mother of God in 
the Natron valley, west of Cairo. All but three leaves at 
Berlin is preserved in the British Museum, like so many 
other books from the same library, acquired in 1842 and 
1847. In its original state the manuscript contained the 
Gospels in the unusual order Matthew, Mark, John, Luke: 
of these it now contains only Matthew i. 1-- 111]. 22, x. 32- 
xxiii. 25; Mark xvi. 17-20; John i. 1-42, iii. 5—viii. 19, 
xiv. 10-12, 15-19, 21-24, 26-29; Luke ii. 48-iii. 16, vii. 
33-xvi. 12, xvii. l-xxiv. 24, A comparison of the ground 
covered by each MS. shows that, even if we combine the 
two MSS., we do not possess the Gospels quite complete. 
Sometimes, also, only one MS. is available. Where the 
two are available, a comparative study is really helpful. 
We see, for instance, that the Sinaitic MS. must represent 
an earlier form of the version, at least for the most part, 
than the Curetonian does. The Sinaitic, for example, is, 
like the oldest Greek uncials, without any ending to Mark, 
but the Curetonian exhibits the longer ending. Instances 
of the same kind might be multiplied, whereas instances 
of the contrary are rare. 

A theory is wanted both to explain the origin of this 
version and the differences between its two representatives. 
Burkitt has conjectured that in its original form the 
version was the work of Palut, the third Bishop of Edessa, 
and that it was prepared under the auspices of Serapion, 
Bishop of Syrian Antioch, about the year 200. The Greek 
text from which the translation was made was, therefore, 
the text in use at Antioch at that date—a text otherwise 
practically unrepresented in our extant authorities, at 
least so far as we know. The translator was influenced 
both by the Peshitta Old Testament and by the Diatessaron 
in some of his renderings and readings. ‘The Antioch text, 
therefore, ‘ Western’ in character, if not Western geo- 
graphically, has suffered in the process of translation some 
alterations which bring it on occasion into closer conformity 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC δ9 


with another, though kindred, type—namely, the geo- 
graphically Western type. The differences between the 
Curetonian and Sinaitic types are easily explained. The 
Curetonian type represents a partial revision according to 
Greek MSS. of the later (fourth century) kind. Both MSS. 
seem also to have been at times altered to agreement with 
the Diatessaron by scribes accustomed to its language. 
Examples of the phenomena just indicated are: in 
Matthew iv. 6 and Luke iv. 11 ‘arms’ instead of ‘ hands’ 
is due to the influence of the Peshitta Old Testament 
(Psalm xci. 12). The Old-Syriac and the Diatessaron 
agree in rendering οὐκ ἤθελεν in Luke xviii. 13 as ‘ was not 
daring,’ as they do in rendering σάρξ (John i. 14) by ‘a 
body,’ and ἐν ἡμῖν (same verse) by ‘in our nature’; both 
also have ‘Lo’ for οἶδα ὅτι in John iv. 25. Proof that 
the Sinaitic MS. contains the version in a more primitive 
form than the Curetonian is to be seen in the fact that 
the former omits the ‘ Father, forgive them’ passage in 
Luke xxiii. 34 with the oldest Greek MSS., while the latter 
joins the multitude of Greek MSS. in inserting it at 
that place. The state of the evidence in the Lord’s Prayer 
points the same way, as does the text of Luke x. 41. 
Hitherto nothing has been said of the Old-Syriac version 
of other parts of the New Testament, and indeed there is 
not much to say. The older Assyrian Church possessed 
the Epistles of Paul (including the spurious Epistle to the 
Corinthians), and also the three Catholic Epistles, First John, 
First Peter, and James, but no more of the New Testament. 
We know hardly anything of the text of the Epistles of 
Paul, little more than we can get from Ephraim’s Syriac 
commentary, which has survived in an Armenian trans- 
lation, and a few citations from his contemporary Aphra- 
ates. There was certainly some kinship between the text 
used by Ephraim and that used by the heretic Marcion. 
This need not surprise us. Tatian and Marcion were in 
Rome about the same time. Just as Tatian used a Western 
text of the Gospels as the basis of his Diatessaron, so must 
Marcion also have used a Western text as the basis of his 


60 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


recension of St. Paul’s Epistles. Doubtless Tatian brought 
the Epistles of Paul to Assyria, and may have translated 
an early Western text of them for the benefit of his com- 
patriots. It may have been Marcion’s edition which was 
translated in the first instance, and afterwards amplified. 
Of this text we would gladly know more, but only Armenian 
experts can give us this, and, so far as I know, they have 
not yet done so with the desirable fulness. 


§ 3. THE PrEsHiITTa (SIMPLE, VULGATE) VERSION 


The third of the Syriac versions, the Vulgate of the 
Assyrian Church, was, like the Latin Vulgate, a revision, 
not a fresh translation. Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa from 
411 to 435, ordered that the Old-Syriac version should be 
revised in accordance with up-to-date Greek MSS. Thus 
the Old-Syriac was thoroughly revised textually ! to bring 
it into accord with manuscripts which were two centuries 
later than those from which it had been made, and were 
quite different in type. Constantinople was now the centre 
of the Church in the East, and there an ecclesiastical text 
was in use which we find cited in the writings of the great 
patriarch St. Chrysostom, done to death in 407. Such an 
MS. as he might have used was carefully compared with 
the Old-Syriac version of the Gospels, and the latter was 
carefully altered, generally in the direction of expansion, 
to agree with the Greek MS. Thus it happens that the 
Peshitta Syriac rarely witnesses to anything different from 
what we find in the great bulk of Greek manuscripts. The 
version has remained the standard through all the later 
divisions of the Assyrian Church. It did not contain 
Second or Third John, Second Peter, Jude, or the Apoca- 
lypse. 

This view, first expounded by Burkitt, is held now by 
nearly all Syriac scholars, and seems to those without to 
be much more rational than the older view.2 The older 

1 But old translations remain: ἀποστεῖλαι (Luke iv. 18) is still translated 


‘confirm (strengthen).’ 
2 Cf, Hermann von Soden, Die Schriften des N. T., u.s.w., Bd. i. pp. 1459 f. 


Iv.} THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 61 


Syriac scholars considered the Peshitta to be a second- 
century production, and, as its close relationship to the 
bulk of Greek MSS. was evident, the defenders of the 
Constantinopolitan ecclesiastical text could point to this 
second-century version as evidence that the type of text 
they defended was as old as any known. The Peshitta 
was, in fact, ‘the sheet-anchor,’ as Dr. Sanday happily 
put it, of the older hypothesis. Now that this anchor 
has been shown to be but decaying wood after all, and 
incapable of holding, the Peshitta can be left to perform 
a part hardly less interesting, if not so important, as used 
to be claimed for it. 


§ 4, THE PHILOXENIAN VERSION 


The Assyrian Church was slow to rest content with its 
achievements in the way of translation. Standard and 
official as the Peshitta always remained, further efforts 
were employed on the New Testament. In the year 506 
Xenaia (Philoxenus), Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis),? super- 
intended a more exactly literal translation of the New 
Testament made by his ywpericxoros, Polycarp. Of 
this translation in its original form only the books lacking 
in the Peshitta Canon, namely, Second and Third John, 
Second Peter, Jude, and the Apocalypse, survive. The 
Greek manuscripts from which the translation was made 
were of considerable textual purity. For instance, what is 
probably the correct reading in Jude, verses 22-23, namely, 
Kal ovs μὲν ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζετε, διακρινομένους δὲ ἐλεᾶτε, with 
ἐν φόβῳ x.t.A. following as in other texts, is preserved 
only in this version, and in Clement of Alexandria (date 
about 220) and Jerome (about 400). 


§ 5. THE HARCLEAN REVISION 


But, though this Philoxenian version has for the most 
part perished, it exists almost complete in a revision made 


1 Now Menbidsh on the Euphrates, 


62 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cH. 


by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea) on the basis of two or 
three accurate Greek manuscripts, in the year 616-17, at 
Alexandria. The purpose of this revision was to make the 
accurate Philoxenian version more literal still. The result 
is such as to do violence to the Syriac language. But if 
this fact made it unreadable before congregations, it makes 
it all the more useful to the textual critic who seeks to get 
below it to the underlying Greek. Its accuracy seldom 
leaves the original Greek in doubt. 

A new feature of the translation is that it was equipped 
with signs, and with marginal notes containing the readings 
of the manuscripts, Syriac and Greek, used by the trans- 
lator. These notes show that manuscripts diverging from 
the normal in text were still to be found in Alexandria 
at the beginning of the seventh century. The Harclean 
revision is particularly interesting in the Book of Acts, 
where marginal variations from the text, both Syriac and 
Greek, are in remarkable agreement with the Graeco-Latin 
Codex Bezae (saec. v.-vi.) and three Greek cursives known 
as 383 (saec. xill.), 614 (saec. xiii. perhaps), and 1518 
(saec. xv.). In fact, very frequently some or all of these 
authorities stand together against all others in attesting 
particular readings: compare, for instance, my note on 
Acts xvi. 39. This type of text is what we call ‘ Western.’ 
A fresh critical edition of the Harclean revision of Acts 
is much wanted. In other books its text is more common- 
place—more, in fact, what we should expect a seventh- 
century product to be. 


§ 6. THE PALESTINIAN VERSION 


The Palestinian version is written in a dialect of Syriac 
(nearer to the Aramaic spoken by our Lord than are 
the other forms of Syriac) spoken near Syrian Antioch, as 
well as on Sinai and in Egypt. No book of the New 
Testament exists complete in this version. We are 
dependent, in fact, on various manuscripts of a lectionary 
containing select extracts from the Bible. The Greek 


Iv.| THE OLDER VERSIONS: LATIN AND SYRIAC 63 


manuscripts at the basis of the version were by no means 
commonplace. The version, for example, surprises us by 
preserving what is probably the right reading in Matthew 
xxvii. 17, ‘Jesus Barabbas’: this reading is attested by 
very few Greek MSS., but the Old-Syriac version also, the 
Armenian (no doubt through the Old-Syriac), Origen, and 
old MSS. known to Peter of (Syrian) Laodicea ! (about 600) 
share it with the Palestinian Syriac. 


1 Perhaps Peter is here, as often elsewhere, simply copying Origeu. 


64 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


CHAPTER V 
THE OLDER VERSIONS—continued 


ἘΘΥΡΤΙΑΝ (Coptic) VERSIONS, GOTHIC 


nr ntroductory 


From the time of Alexander the Great, and perhaps from 
a still earlier date, cultivated persons in Egypt had been 
able to speak Greek. Alexandria almost from the first 
was destined to be a noted centre of Greek learning and 
books. The earlier Ptolemies were munificent patrons of 
Greek learning, and drew around them a succession of 
scholars and librarians distinguished enough, even though 
they failed to produce immortal works. The library 
or libraries of Alexandria were intended to contain the 
entire literature of Greece (in the widest sense) on papyrus 
rolls. Inno part of the Greek world did Greek institutions 
of every sort take deeper root. 

When Egypt became a Roman province after the battle 
of Actium (31 B.c.), it was treated by the Roman emperors 
in a different way from all the other provinces. Here 
alone did the emperor reign as king, as the successor of 
the Ptolemies. He sent a man of equestrian rank as 
praefectus to govern for him, and his jealousy was such 
that no senator was permitted to land in Egypt without 
special permission from the emperor. It was thus that 
the life of Egypt was for long lived apart from the rest 
of the empire. It was the greatest centre of the corn 
supply for Rome and Italy, and as such had to be guarded | 
with especial care. Its peculiar position, separate from 
the rest of the empire, made it possible for conservative 


v.] THE OLDER VERSIONS 65 


institutions of every sort to flourish there, while the rest 
of the empire was progressing. 

It was in this country, thickly populated with Jews, 
that the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was 
begun in the third century B.c. Here some at least of the 
Old Testament Apocrypha were written. Alexandria was 
the scene of Philo the Jew’s prolific literary activity. A 
good soil for Christianity had been prepared, and there 
can be no doubt that Christianity made rapid progress 
there. Not that our records are reliable. The churches 
of Egypt were isolated from the other churches in the way 
we have indicated. This was favourable to special develop- 
ment, and indeed we know that in some matters of govern- 
ment the churches of Egypt were different from all others. 
The peculiar position of Egypt, joined to its scholarly 
traditions, was also favourable to the better preservation 
of the New Testament text, at a time when it was being 
freely handled in the West. As we have seen, our most 
accurate documents come from there. 

In contrast to the wide cultivation of the classes in 
which Christianity was sure to spread most easily, were the 
original Egyptians themselves, whom the Romans con- 
sidered to be the most degraded of all their subjects. In 
fact, they corresponded in the Roman world to the Aus- 
tralian aborigines in our own time. For long no version 
of the New Testament books would be required in Egypt, 
because the entire reading public was Greek-speaking and 
reading. But when Christianity had worked its way 
down to the degraded strata of society, and had gradually 
lifted them higher and higher, eventually the stage was 
reached when versions in the native Egyptian dialects 
became necessary. 

Of these dialects there were a number. Here we are 
concerned only with three, one of which itself is really a 
group. There were the Bohairic dialect, that spoken in 
the delta of the Nile,. the Sahidic dialect spoken in Upper 
Egypt nearer the source of the Nile, and the group of 
dialects known as Fayyumic (Basmuric), spoken in the 

E 


66 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cn. 


district called the Fayyum. The special circumstances of 
each district would determine the date at which a trans- 
lation would become necessary. In the northern part, 
where was Alexandria, the necessity did not arise till late, 
and Guidi, followed by Burkitt and Leipoldt, thinks that 
the Bohairic version, still the official version of the Coptic 
Church, was made in the sixth or seventh (or eighth) 
century. The Sahidic version, made for a region where the 
knowledge of Greek was not so widespread, was probably 
much earlier, third or fourth century.1 Each of those 
versions appears to have been subjected to at least one 
revision, as the manuscripts in particular passages are 
divided in their support, some supporting older Greek MSS., 
others later Greek MSS. Knowledge of the fragments of 
New Testament texts preserved in the Fayyumic dialects 
is as yet the property only of the experts, and of them 
not much can yet be said. 


§ 1. THE Santpic 5 VERSION 


The Sahidic version of the New Testament must be 
restored from numerous fragments: hardly a single New 
Testament book exists complete in any MS.2 The Rev. 
George W. Horner has recently published the Gospels in 
a critical recension, with apparatus, translation, and 
photographs, which far surpasses all previous efforts.‘ 
He has succeeded in presenting all the text of the Gospels 
except thirteen verses in Matthew, thirty-five in Mark, and 
three in Luke: of these fragmentary verses only fourteen 
are entirely absent. The text in each portion rarely 

1 Leipoldt, a brilliant Coptic scholar, dates the Sahidic version in the first 
half of the fourth century, and the Bohairic in the seventh or eighth century 
(Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, i. (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 81 f.). 

2 Formerly called Thebaic. 

3 This statement must be modified in the light of the discovery of complete 
MSS. of Matthew, Mark, John, fourteen Epistles of Paul, First and Second 
Peter, First, Second, and Third John, now in the possession of J. Pierpont 
Morgan (Journal of Biblical Literature, xxxi. [1912], p. 55). There is also a 
British Museum fourth-century MS. of Acts, recently published by Dr. 


Budge (Coptic Biblical Texts in the British Museum [London, 1911)}). 
4 Clarendon Press, 3 vols., (March) 1911. 


v.] THE OLDER VERSIONS 67 


depends on one fragment only, and seldom on less than 
three : in two verses of John ix. there are actually seven- 
teen authorities.1 When one reflects that these fragments 
are seven hundred and fifty-one in number, and are the 
débris of about a dozen papyrus, and nearly a hundred and 
fifty parchment and paper books, the stupendous nature 
of Mr. Horner’s labour will be realised. The fragments 
vary in date from the fourth century to the fourteenth, 
and they are not entirely homogeneous in textual char- 
acter, though wonderfully so. 

Nevertheless, the character of the Sahidic version, at 
least so far as the Gospels are concerned, is fairly clearly 
marked. Like its younger sister, the Bohairic, it is mainly 
Neutral in tendency—that is, it agrees habitually with the 
sx B type of text. Yet at the same time it shows very 
considerable agreement with D and the Old-Latin authori- 
ties, where these differ from καὶ and B. This latter agree- 
ment is less striking in Matthew and John than it is in 
Luke and Mark. The whole state of affairs could be 
explained by the supposition that the original Sahidic 
Gospels were translated from a manuscript Western in 
text and order of Gospels—such a manuscript, in fact, as 
Clement of Alexandria possessed.2. This type could then 
have been carefully revised with the Neutral type in 
Matthew and John (the first and second Gospels in this 
set), and the third and fourth revised in a more per- 
functory way.? A reviser’s ardour often cools when he 
sees what a tedious work detailed revision is. Despite the 
frequent concurrences with D and the Old-Latin authori- 
ties, it is remarkable that there is hardly an instance where 
D and the Sahidic, or the Old-Latin and the Sahidic, 
stand together in making an addition to the text of all 
other authorities. Even the description of the stone at 


1 Horner’s preface to vol. i. p. viii. 

2 It must be remembered that W, the Freer MS. from Egypt, despite late 
textual elements, still has the Gospels in the Western order. 

3 As a matter of fact, there is reason to suppose that John came before 
Matthew, and Mark before Luke, in the Sahidic ‘Gospel’; but this does not 
affect our reasoning. 


68 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


the tomb of Jesus in St. Luke appears in different words 
in each of the four Sahidic manuscripts available at that 
point, the wording in no case agreeing exactly with that 
of D or the Old-Latin MS. c, the only other authorities 
for the interpolation. An interesting Western reading, 
κεκαλυμμένη for καιομένη in Luke xxiv. 32, is unquestion- 
ably also the genuine Sahidic lection, as the testimony of 
six Sahidic MSS. extant at that point is unanimous. In 
Acts the text is said to be more distinctively Western. 

The Sahidic version is of the utmost importance in any 
endeavour to sketch the earliest history of the New Testa- 
ment text, for in itself it shows in special combination 
the ‘ Western’ and ‘ Neutral’ types. An ideal text could 
perhaps be constructed from these two types alone, if we 
possessed them in a state of perfect purity. If the char- 
acter of the Sahidic as now accessible does not make the 
problem of the early history of the Greek text easier, it at 
least provides fresh material for the solution of that 
problem of a surpassingly interesting kind. 


§ 2. THE Bonatric! VERSION 


The whole New Testament is preserved in the Bohairic 
version, the official version of the Coptic Church. In 
textual character it is not unrelated to the Sahidic, and 
certain MSS. of the Bohairic appear to have been actually 
influenced by Sahidic MSS. But this version differs in 
two ways from the Sahidic. It is on the whole closer 
to the Greek MSS. » and B, and rarely shows Western 
characteristics. Again, while it supports x and B con- 
sistently, it not infrequently, or at least this is true of 
certain MSS., supports the later Alexandrian type of text, 
of which L is the best representative. This latter fact 
suggests that the Bohairic translation is altogether a later 
production than the Sahidic. The MSS., also, are far 
from showing the consistency of the Sahidic MSS. It 
seems not improbable that the Bohairic version was sub- 


1 Sometimes called also Coptic, Memphitic. 


v.] THE OLDER VERSIONS 69 


jected to a revision not very long after its original appear- 
ance. ‘The oldest MS. of the Bohairic, a Gospel lectionary,! 
sometimes presents an older type of reading than any other 
extant Bohairic manuscript. 


§ 3. THE MIDDLE-EGyYPTIAN VERSIONS 


Of the Middle-Egyptian versions fragments in at least 
three dialects are preserved, but they are practically 
inaccessible to non-experts, and as yet do not cover much 
of the ground of the New Testament. A complete study 
of them will doubtless be undertaken when more fragments 
have come to hand. The symbol ‘ basm’ in Tischendorf 
(=Basmuric) indicates a reading in one of the dialects 
of Middle Egypt. Some of these readings are striking 
enough, as, for example, in Hebrews ix. 2, where there is 
an interesting agreement with B in a remarkable reading. 


ὃ 4. GoTHIc VERSION 


Some of the Goths on the northern frontier of the Roman 
Empire became Christian before they became Roman, and 
in consequence their second Bishop Ulfilas (Wulfila), whose 
life stretched throughout the greater part of the fourth 
century, translated the Bible into the Gothic language. 
This translation has great interest as the oldest Teutonic 
literary monument. The translation of the New Testa- 
ment was made from Greek MSS. such as Chrysostom 
used, of the official Constantinopolitan type. The version 
no longer exists in completeness. The most noted manu- 
script of it, the Codex Argenteus, now at Upsala, is written 
in silver letters on purple-stained vellum, and the writing 
was probably executed in North Italy in the sixth century. 
How it found its way into the valuable library of the 
monastery of Werden in Germany, where it was in the 
sixteenth century, is not known, but in the middle of the 
seventeenth century it reached Sweden as part of the booty 


1 Perhaps Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan’s defective codez is still older (Journal 
of Biblical Literature, xxxi. [1912], p. 55). 


70 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cH. 


taken in the Thirty Years’ War, having been in the interim 
at Prague. The manuscript in its present state contains 
fragments of the four Gospels. A bilingual Gothico-Latin 
fragment of another, probably fifth century, Gospel MS. 
has been mentioned in the last chapter. Fragments of 
the Pauline Epistles have also come down to us, belonging 
to other MSS., one at Wolfenbiittel being Latino-Gothic 
and containing about forty verses of Romans. It is 
possible that a critical edition of the Gothic Bible was 
produced by Ulfilas’s pupils Sunnias and Fretelas in 405. 
Certainly, where two authorities are available for com- 
parison, they do not always precisely agree. 


vi. | SECONDARY VERSIONS 71 


CHAPTER VI 
SECONDARY VERSIONS 


UNDER this head are included not only versions which are 
of secondary importance to the textual critic, but more 
especially those which were not made directly from the 
Greek, but through some intervening version. Even in 
modern times we are familiar with such secondary versions. 
Wycliffe’s and all the other English versions before William 
Tindale’s were translations of the Latin, and not made 
from the original tongues, Hebrew and Greek. Similarly 
the Western Church had to read the Old Testament in a 
translation of the Septuagint, until Jerome translated it 
from the Hebrew. Several versions of the New Testament 
existed in the early centuries of the Church, which are trans- 
lations of other versions, and these we now propose to 
enumerate. 


§ 1. ARMENIAN VERSIONS 


The Armenian Church was the result of evangelisation 
by Assyrian Christians, and it was natural that the 
Armenians should get their biblical books from the 
Assyrians. The Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles were 
translated into Armenian from the Old-Syriac version, 
either in the third or the fourth century, and an exact 
copy of this translation in the Gospels would be practically 
equivalent to a third manuscript of the Old-Syriac version. 
The Assyrian influence on the Armenian Church subsisted 
into the fifth century. In the year 433, however, two 
Armenians returning from the Synod of Ephesus obtained 


72 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH 


a Greek Bible at Constantinople, and, after learning Greek 
at Alexandria, translated it into Armenian, or rather 
revised the existing Armenian version by reference to the 
Greek. Atleast so one tradition runs; but another records 
that St. Sahak performed this service about 406. The 
best edition of the version, based on twenty manuscripts, 
is that of Zohrab (1789), but this edition naturally does 
not satisfy the legitimate demands of modern biblical 
scholarship. The Armenian version, like the Old-Syriac, 
lacked Philemon, but had the apocryphal Third Corinthians. 

The manuscripts show many divergences from one 
another. No manuscripts of the primitive form survive. 
The older readings probably represent elements belonging 
to the earliest form of the version from the Old-Syriac ; 
while the others are due to the Constantinopolitan ecclesi- 
astical Greek text behind the second form of the Armenian. 
For instance, one manuscript of the Armenian, like the 
older form of the Old-Syriac, is without any ending to 
Mark, but all the other known MSS. have the longer 
ending,! one attributing it to ‘the presbyter Ariston.’ 
This is generally considered to point to Aristion of Asia 
(flor. 110), a disciple of the Lord mentioned by Papias. 
There can be no doubt that the original Armenian version 
was without the ending. Much valuable information on 
the Armenian readings, due to an independent study of 
the version in the original, will be found in the apparatus 
to Mr. Horner’s edition of the Sahidic version. 

For one part of the New Testament, the Apocalypse, we 
possess, thanks to the scholarly labours of Dr. F. C. Cony- 
beare, an up-to-date edition of both forms in which it 
has come down to us. He has shown that the Apocalypse 
was first translated into Armenian in the fifth century. 
As this book does not appear to have been translated into 
Syriac till the century after, this translation cannot have 
come from Syriac. It would be natural, therefore, to infer 
that it was made direct from Greek. But some curious 
phenomena about it seem to suggest that it was made 


1 Cf, alse the case of Luke xxii. 43-4. 


v1.] SECONDARY VERSIONS 73 


from Latin: the spelling Zezabel (ii. 20); the reading 
“pains of a couch’ (ii. 22) in one MS., compared with 
luctum of one Latin authority, confused with lectum 
(couch). In whatever way we explain such occurrences, 
the Old-Armenian is a valuable text, and in some cases 
it may alone preserve the original reading in the case of a 
book, the textual history of which is notoriously obscure 
and difficult: for example, it omits ws χιών in chap. i. 
verse 15. Its additions, however, such as ‘with the 
daughters of the Gentiles’ (chap. ii. 14) after πορνεῦσαι 
(cf. xiii. 5), may make one suspicious as to its omissions. 
I have been careful to record its interesting readings in 
my apparatus. 

This Old-Armenian version of the Apocalypse was 
revised in the twelfth century, and in this later form it 
is officially recognised. The revision leaves a good many 
of the older characteristics untouched. 


§ 2. Eruiorico (ABYSSINIAN) VERSION 


Scholars vary much in their opinions as to the date of 
origin of the Ethiopic version, some arguing for a date 
as early as the fifth century, while others attribute it to 
a date as late as the sixth or seventh. Gildemeister was 
of the latter opinion, and believed the version to have 
been translated from Syriac by Monophysite Assyrians 
who had converted the Abyssinians about 500 4.p. With 
this opinion Burkitt agrees, adding that it was the Old- 
Syriac, not the Peshitta, that was used. The version was 
certainly influenced later by Coptic or Arabic texts. The 
oldest manuscript is perhaps of the thirteenth century. 
According to some, at least, of those who know the Ethiopic 
version well, it is valueless for purposes of New Testament 
textual criticism. ᾿Αντικρύς in Acts xx. 15 is taken as a 
proper name. Certainly there are wide variations between 
the MSS., and in important places we generally find that 
some of them are ranged on each side. 


74 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


§ 3. GEORGIAN (IBERIAN) VERSION 


This version was supposed by some to have been made 
from the Greek in the sixth century, but its characteristics, 
so far as they are known, rather suggest a close relation- 
ship with the Armenian, and point to considerable freedom 
in handling the sacred text. Drs. Conybeare and Burkitt 
are of opinion that it was made originally from a manuscript 
of the Old-Syriac text almost identical with that which 
the first Armenian translators used. This would at once 
explain its likeness to the Armenian. They also think 
that this original form of the version was revised and 
corrected throughout from the Greek text, in the time 
of St. Euthymius, says Conybeare. In certain select 
parts of the Gospels he has exhibited points of contact 
between this version and D, the Sinaitic and Peshitta 
Syriac, and the Armenian. In Acts a manuscript of the 
twelfth or thirteenth century abounds in early Western 
readings, especially such as are found in D and E of the 
Greek.2 A further connexion with the Armenian is postu- 
lated by some, for example Dr. T. Kluge, who decides that 
the Georgian version is later than the Armenian, but how 
much later he cannot say.® 


§ 4. ARABIC VERSIONS 


These come partly direct from the Greek, partly through 
Syriac, and partly through Coptic. Muhammad himself 
knew the Gospel story only orally. The oldest MS. goes 
no farther back than the eighth century: a ninth-century 
MS. contains certain of the Pauline Epistles in a text, 
which appears to have been translated from the Peshitta 


1 ‘The Georgian Version of the N. T.’ in Zeitschrift fiir die neutest. Wis- 
senschaft, xi. (1910), 232-9, with photographs of pages of two MSS. (pos- 
sibly of the twelfth and thirteenth century). Euthymius lived in the fifth 
century. 

3 The ‘Old Georgian Version of Acts’ in the same review, xii. (1911), 
131-40, with three plates. ., A 

3 In the same review, Uber das Alter der georgischen Ubersetzung des 
Neuen Testamentes, xi. (1910), 161-6. 


VI.] SECONDARY VERSIONS 75 


Syriac. Interesting readings are occasionally to be found 
in Arabic; for example, the negative form of Matthew 
xviii. 20, a reading at least as old as the second century. 
Two revisions of the Arabic are reported to have taken 
place at Alexandria in the thirteenth century. 


Such is a sketchy view of certain ancient versions. 
The meagreness of our knowledge with regard to certain 
of them is a call for workers in this field. It is most 
desirable that what Mr. Horner has done so admirably for 
the Bohairic and Sahidic should be done for the Armenian, 
Georgian, and other versions. 


76 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cu. 


CHAPTER VII 
PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 


§ 1. GREEK WRITERS 


APOSTOLIC FaTHERS.—The quotations from or allusions to 
the New Testament in the Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, 
First Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, and 
Second Clement were carefully collected and examined by 
a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology. 
The results, which were published in 1905 in a volume 
entitled The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, have 
hardly any bearing on the choice between variants in 
passages of the New Testament. But, if one could be sure 
that First Clement i. 3 was an echo of the Epistle to Titus, 
chap il. verse 5, the οἰκουργεῖν of the former would be a 
powerful support to the oixovpyovs of the better MSS. 
(as against the oixovpovs of the inferior) in the latter. 

MARCION, a native of Sinope in Pontus, active in Rome 
(140 and later). When he parted from the Church of Rome, 
he issued an EvayyeAvov of his own which was that of St. 
Luke with excisions made in the interests of his excessive 
Paulinism. The text he used as the basis of this edition 
was of course old, and old of the Western type.! We find 
him in company with Latin witnesses, especially the 
European Old-Latin MSS., but not infrequently also with 
the Old-Syriac. He is never on the side of the great 
Greek uncials against both these versions.’ 

Marcion’s canon of the Pauline Epistles deserves special 

1 Cf. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century (London, 1876), pp 
231 ff., 362 ff. ; “Zabn, Gesch. des neutest. Kanons, i. pp. 585-718; C. H. Turner 


in Journal of Theoloyical Studies, x. (1908-9), pp. 179-82. 
2 Cr. below, pp. 122, 137. 


vu.}] PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 77 


mention. It was without the Pastorals, and the remaining 
Epistles were arranged in the following order, the most 
Pauline at the head: Galatians, First Corinthians, Second 
Corinthians, Romans, First and Second Thessalonians, 
Laodiceans (=‘ Ephesians’), Colossians, Philippians, Phil- 
emon. The text was subjected to considerable mutilations, 
as we learn from critics of Marcion like Tertullian and 
Epiphanius. Whether the absence of the last two chap- 
ters of Romans in Marcion’s edition is the result of excision 
or not seems doubtful: some scholars think Paul himself 
issued two editions of this Epistle—one for Rome, and 
another, lacking mention of Rome in chap. i. verses 7 and 
15, and wanting the last two chapters, as a circular Epistle. 
The ἀποστολικόν of Marcion can be in great part recon- 
structed from the details provided by his critics, but as 
a separate work all of it has perished except the prologues 
to the Epistles and the chapter headings. These have 
survived in a Latin translation found in many MSS. of 
the Vulgate, etc.1 It may be that Marcion himself is the 
originator of a number of petty variations which are char- 
acteristic of the Western text of the Epistles (preserved 
in D and other Greek MSS.). The Old-Syriac version of 
the Epistles seems to have been like his in text, just as 
the Gospel text of Tatian’s Diatessaron finds its relations 
in West European texts. 

JUSTIN Martyr.—J ustin, who lived and worked at Rome 
about 150, is a very loose quoter.2. He appears to have made 
most use of the Matthaean Gospel, and in a text decidedly 
‘Western’; the company in which we find him is D, the 


1 The identification was made by Dom Donatien de Bruyne, O.S.B., of 
Maredsous, Belgium, in the Revue Bénédictine, xxiv. (1907), pp. 1-16, and 
(independently) by Dr. Peter Corssen, noe in the Zeitschrift fiir die 
neutestamentl. Wissenschaft, vol. x. (1909), pp. 1-45. Harnack, Harris, 
Burkitt and others have accepted the identification without question ; see 
e.g. Burkitt’s The Gospel History and its Transmission (ed. 3), (Edin. 1911). 
I have found the prologues and chapter headings in certain MSS. of the 
expansion of Pelagius’s commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, which 
passes under the name of Jerome: there they are obviously copied from a 
Vulgate MS. 

2 On the whole subject, see Sanday’ s chap. iv., especially pp. 113 ff. , 133 ff. 
Bousset, Die Evangelienzitate J.’s (GOtt. 1391), and H. von Soden, Op. cit., 


8 575. 


78 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cn. 


Diatessaron, the Old-Latin, the Old-Syriac, the ‘ Clem- 
entine’ Homilies. Interesting instances of readings in 
Justin are the Light at the Baptism (Matt. iii. 16), shared 
with the Diatessaron and the two Old-Latin MSS. a and g ; 
‘Thou art’ for ‘ This is’ in Matt. iii. 17 (Luke iii. 22) with 
D, a of Old-Latin, Irenaeus, Hilary, and Augustine, etc. ; 
ἐρῶ for ὁμολογήσω (or ὀμόσω) in Matt. vii. 23 with the oldest 
Old-Latin MSS., the Old-Syriac, the Diatessaron, Cyprian 
twice, and Augustine. But contrary to such authorities, 
or, rather, to some of them, he has Luke xxii. 19. 

Tue Acts oF PavL, composed by a presbyter of the 
province of Asia (possibly of Smyrna‘), who was deposed 
from his office on confessing his guilt, dates from about 
160. The work is based on the canonical Acts, and some 
points suggest that these were used in a Western text. 
For instance, in Acts xxi. 1, D has the insertion καὶ Μύρα : 
and this form appears to have been before the eyes of the 
presbyter.” 

TatTran.—All that we have found it necessary to say with 
regard to Tatian has already been said in the fourth chap- 
ter, in connexion with the Diatessaron. Reference must 
be made here, however, to the commentaries on the Gospels 
written by Isho‘dad of Merv, Bishop of Hadatha about 
A.D. 850. This learned commentator compiled his work 
from earlier sources, the chief of which were Ephraim’s 
commentary on the Diatessaron, and Theodore of Mop- 
suestia on the Gospels. The work has recently been pub- 
lished in Syriac and English by Mrs. M. D. Gibson, with an 
introduction by Dr. J. Rendel Harris.2 Much of the 
Diatessaron is here preserved in a pure state, and Old- 
Syriac readings are to be found in considerable numbers.* 


1 An excellent suggestion of Carl Schmidt (Acta Pauli, Ubersetzung, 
Untersuchungen und koptischer Text, herausg. v. C. 8. 2% Ausg. [ Leipzig. 1905], 
p. 205 n. 1) to account for the large number of proper names shared by 
Smyrnaean inscriptions with the Acta Pauli. 

2 Schmidt, p. 212. The writer has also used the Epistles, including the 
Pastorals. 

3 Cambridge University Press, 1911, vol. i. (English); vols. 11. and iii. 
(Syriac). 

4 See vol. i. pp. xxxvii f. for an enumeration. 


vil.] PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 79 


It is now known that the Commentary of Dionysius Bar 
Salibi, written in the twelfth century, which used to be 
regarded as of high value for the sake of the authorities 
used, is hardly anything but a compilation from the 
Nestorian Isho‘dad and the Monophysite Moses Bar 
Kepha.? 

IRENAEUS.—Irenaeus, born about 140 in or near Smyrna, 
where he heard Bishop Polycarp, removed early in life to 
Rome, where he was a hearer of Justin Martyr, and appar- 
ently did not return to the East. As Bishop of Lyons he 
wrote his greatest work, probably about 185. The original 
Greek has perished, except for one fragment of papyrus 
MS., which has turned up in Egypt. We are dependent 
for the rest of what we have of the Greek on citations in 
later authors, who are under some suspicion of having 
altered the biblical quotations to a form more like that 
used by themselves. The greatest quoter is Epiphanius, 
of the second half of the fourth century, whose work is not 
yet satisfactorily edited.2 Nevertheless, the tiny fragment 
from Oxyrhynchus strengthens emphatically the inference 
which we make from a study of the other materials at 
our disposal. It contains a quotation of Matt. iii. 16, 17, 
in which the following interesting readings occur: ὡς for 
ὡσεί With D and Eusebius, καί before ἐρχόμενον with D and 
the great mass of authorities, εἰς αὐτόν for ἐπ’ αὐτόν with D 
and Eusebius, σὺ εἶ for οὗτός ἐστιν with D alone of Greek 
MSS. A remarkable likeness to Codex Bezae is thus evident. 
But there are differences. D has καταβαίνοντα (for κατα- 
βαῖνον), and adds ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. After λέγουσα, also, D 
has πρὸς αὐτόν. But, despite these differences, we shall 
not err greatly in concluding that Irenaeus’s copy of the 
Gospel was practically equivalent to an early ancestor 
of the Greek side of Codex Bezae, excelling the latter by 
greater freedom from corruption. Dr. Conybeare tells me 
(Ca noes et oan pp. xxx f. Compare also his Hphrem and the Gospel 

2 A scientific edition is to be expected from Dr. Karl Holl, who has already 


published Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung des Epiphanius (Ancoratus 
und Panarion) (Leipzig, 1910). 


80 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


that the recently edited Armenian translation of Books 
iv. and ν. of Irenaeus’s work increases the closeness to the 
Bezan text.! In Acts the case is the same exactly: e.g. 
Acts iv. 31, παντὶ τῷ θέλοντι πιστεύειν, Shared by both, and 
so with the negative golden rule (xv. 20) and the φερόμενοι 
ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι Of xv. 29 (cf. below). 

Our knowledge of this work, however, is mainly derived 
from a complete and careful Latin translation which has 
survived. This translation was probably made in Africa 
in the second half of the fourth century.2 It often follows 
the Greek exactly, but there is plenty of clear evidence in 
other cases that the translator was using a Latin Bible 
familiar to him.2 When a long citation was made, it was 
convenient to look the passage out in the Latin Bible, and 
copy the translation thence. In general, where we cannot 
parallel the phraseology from the Latin Bible in any par- 
ticular citation, we may conclude that at that point the 
translator is reproducing his Greek without referring to a 
Latin Bible. In the Gospels our translator had a text 
showing points of contact with k. The most glaring 
instance of this is a reference to Matt. v. 22, where the best 
MS. of Irenaeus lat. (Claromontanus of the ninth century, 
now at Berlin) shares with k the extraordinary corruption 
pascitur for irascitur: but there are a good many other 
cases of agreement. There are points of contact also with 
d. In Acts our translator shows agreements with h: 


1 Irenaeus’ gegen die Hiiretiker...in armen. Version entdeckt ... (Texte 
und Untersuchungen Band xxxv. (2), Leipzig, 1910). Dr. Conybeare’s results 
are in print, and will be published in Sanday’s Novum Testamentum S. 
Trenaei. 

2 My own conclusion (based on a minute lexicographical and stylistic 
argument, now in print), independently reached by Hort as to date (Westcott 
and Hort’s introduction, § 220, a masterly summary of a lengthy argument 
which will be published complete in Novwm Testamentum S. Irenaci, by Dr. 
Sanday and collaborators) and by Dr. H. Jordan as to date and locality 
(Theologische Studien Theodor Zahn . . . zugebracht [Leipzig, 1908], pp. 
133-92, also separately). Nor ought Dodwell (Dissertationes in Irenaewm, 
Oxon., 1689) to be forgotten. See also O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie? (Freib., 
1910), p. 97; Nestle, Hinfiihrung?, p. 162. 

3 As the Latin translation shows undoubted traces of the Lucianic recen- 
sion of the LXX in a long citation from Third Kingdoms (Rahlfs, Septua- 
ginta Studien, iii. (Gottingen, 1911), pp. 116 ff., 188), it is clear that it can- 
not be earlier than the fourth century. Lucifer is the first Latin author of 
fixed date to show such traces (Rahlts, pp. 143-54). 


vu.} PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 81 


but the most striking agreement is that with d, namely 
in Acts ili. 14, where D d have ἐβαρύνατε, grauastis, and the 
Latin Irenaeus adgrauastis, while all other authorities have 
ἠρνήσασθε (denied). There are, in fact, a number of agree- 
ments with D in Acts (οὗ. xvii. 26), and it looks as if here 
also D were a fifth or a sixth century representative of the 
roll of Acts used by Irenaeus himself. In the Epistles of 
St. Paul and in the Apocalypse the type of text used by 
the translator is late—fourth century, in fact. In the 
former case he is in close relationship with the text used 
by Augustine; in the latter he is not far removed from the 
Vulgate itself. In his text of the Catholic Epistles there 
are two interesting points. In First Peter ii. 23 he has the 
clause τυπτόμενος οὐκ ἀντέτυπτεν, elsewhere found in Greek 
only in the Apostolic Canons: in First John iv. 3 he is the 
oldest authority for the reading ὃ λύει, shared with Clement, 
Origen, etc.} 

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA became head of the Catechet- 
ical School in Alexandria shortly before 200. He is not a 
very careful quoter of Scripture, but, thanks to the 
researches of Mr. P. M. Barnard, it is now known that in 
the Gospels he used a text closely related to Codex Bezae 
(D).2 Instances are: ἔξωθεν for ἐκτός in Matt. xxiii. 26, 
the omission of the second ὑμᾶς in Luke vi. 22, διάγοντες 
for ὑπάρχοντες in Luke vii. 25, the reversed order of clauses 
in Luke ix. 62, the shortest form of text in Luke x. 42, 
προμεριμνᾶτε in Luke xii. 11, τὸ ἑπτάκις in Luke xvii. 4, and 
soon. In Acts and the Epistles of Paul the relationship to 
the x B type seems closer (cf. Acts xvii. 23, where ἱστορῶν 
in one of two citations is like D’s διιστορῶν, but ὅν and 
τοῦτον in both citations follow the other family : also Rom. 
x. 9, 15, xiii. 13, 14; Gal. 11. 11, 11. 24). Many readings in 
the scanty manuscripts of Clement’s works are doubtless 
due to scribal harmonisation with the late ecclesiastical text. 

1 In this investigation I have profited by the work of Dr. Sanday, Mr. 
Turner, and collaborators, as well as by the study necessary for my own 
lectures in the University of Oxford (1908-9). 


2 The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the 
Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge, 1899). 


F 


82 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


Hippotytus.—Of the voluminous works of this writer, 
who lived in or near Rome and in Sardinia (f 236 or 237), 
but little survives in the original Greek. Yet enough 
remains to show that in the Gospels he used a good Western 
text. His citations of Matthew xiii. 43, xxiv. 48-49, and 
xxv. 41 suggest that he may also have used Tatian’s 
Diatessaron on occasion. In the Epistles of Paul, also, 
he appears to have used.a Western text: at least this is 
suggested by the text in which he quotes 1 Thess. iv. 13-17. 
In the Apocalypse his text is particularly important: 
there he is found to agree with the best authorities; for 
example, he reads βασιλείαν in chap. v. ver. 10, θελήσωσιν 
in xi. 6, ἡρπάσθη in xii. 5 (twice), δῶσιν in xiii. 16, εἶδα 
with A (only) in xvii. 3,1 which certainly ought to 
be put in the text. The advent of the Jerusalem MS. 
(saec. x.) of the De Antichristo in G. N. Bonwetsch’s 
edition (Leipzig, 1902) completely antiquates Tischendorf’s 
reports of Hippolytus’s readings, especially in chapters 
xvii. and xviii. of the Apocalypse. 

ORIGEN.—Clement’s successor Origen (f 248), the greatest 
biblical scholar of the ancient world, had every then existing 
type of text at his disposal. It is therefore a matter of 
the greatest regret that, owing to dogmatic bias at the end 
of the fourth century and later, his works practically ceased 
to be copied; that in consequence we are confined to a 
few late (and bad) manuscripts of a few works or parts of 
works, and that those which were translated into Latin 
were rendered without due regard to the form of the 
biblical quotations.? Origen’s practice was to dictate his 
works: sometimes he may have indicated the roll from 
which the amanuensis was to copy a passage of Scripture, 
sometimes he may have left it to the amanuensis himself. 
In him as in other ancient writers we occasionally find 


1 For another agreement of A and Hipp. see Apoc. xviii. 2. Read ἔβαλον 
with C Hipp. in xviii. 19. 

2 For instance, Bishop Westcott in his classical article ‘ Origen,’ in the Dic- 
tiwnary of Christian Biography, long ago showed that Rufinus, in translating 
Origen on Romans into Latin, had substituted for Origen’s biblical text a 
Latin text current at Aquileia in North Italy about 400—no doubt with the 
best motives ! 


vu.] PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 83 


that the comments presuppose a different text from that 
which precedes them. Dr. E. Hautsch has done good 
service in eliciting from comments of Origen’s on the 
Gospels the text on which he must have been commenting.! 

There is, in the first place, clear evidence that Origen was 
acquainted with a Gospel text of the D type. I borrow 
the following instances from Nestle: 2 Mark xiv. 36, the 
order δυνατὰ πάντα σοι (=D 565); Matthew x. 19, παρα- 
δώσουσιν (=D), instead of παραδῶσιν. But it is also true 
that in Origen’s works we find the earliest clear traces of 
the opposite type of text, the Neutral or καὶ B type, though 
not nearly so often as the other. Instances will be found 
in my apparatus at the following places: Matt. xi. 9, 
ΧΙ 22. xx 17. xxi: 12> Mark 1.13, vii: 19°; Luke ΧΙ. 2; 
mya D2) xo) 19. xxi. 453 “John ἢ, 16. xin: 2,°26. Such 
readings may be in part due to the fact that Origen’s 
writings were early circulated through an Alexandrian 
medium. Just as with Irenaeus and Clement, D most 
nearly represents his text, and perhaps the best way to 
describe the situation would be to say that Origen’s favour- 
ite roll varied very seldom from the readings supported by 
B and D in common. 

With regard to the Pauline Epistles, a fortunate dis- 
covery of Von der Goltz has put us in a much better 
position. In a MS. at the Laura monastery on Mount 
Athos 3 he found Origen’s text of the Epistle to the Romans 
complete, which some biblical scholar in the tenth century 
had carefully copied out of a manuscript of Origen’s 
commentary on that epistle in the original Greek, now 
lost. The MS. also contains considerable notes of what 
Origen read in particular places of other Epistles also, as 
well as the Catholic Epistles and Acts. With G and 
1908™% 4 Origen left out ἐν Ρώμῃ in Rom. i. 7, but on the 


1 Die Evangelienzitate des Origenes (Leipzig, 1909). 

2 Kinfiihrung (ed. 3), p. 162. 

3 17394P in Gregory’s list (B 64 is the shelfmark in the Laura). Von der 
Goltz, Hine textkritische Arbeit des 10 bezw. 6 Jhdts. (Leipzig, 1899). 

4 1908 is an eleventh- century MS. at Oxford, which has some considerable 
connexion with Origen (and with MS. 1739). The corrector of the eleventh- 
century Vienna MS. (known as 424**) is also related (cf. Gal. iii. 8). 


84 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


whole it is the Neutral text to which he witnesses in this 
Epistle (cf. ii. 16 with x» Β, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, etc.). In the 
Epistle to the Hebrews Origen’s text is most nearly repre- 
sented by M (or 0121), ninth-century fragments at London 
and Hamburg. 

PamPHILUS and Evusrsrus.—The martyr Pamphilus 
(+ 309), already referred to, had been educated at Alex- 
andria, and the main part of the theological library which 
he founded at Caesarea in Palestine consisted of the 
voluminous works of Origen on rolls. His pupil and 
protégé, Eusebius (f 339-40), afterwards Bishop of Caesarea, 
had full use of this collection. We are not surprised, 
therefore, to find Eusebius ranged on the side of D and 
Origen in the Gospels. He is, however, a most unsatis- 
factory quoter from our point of view, as he rarely indulges 
in a long citation. 

ATHANASIUS (f 373) and CyRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (f 444) 
both, according to Hermann von Soden, used for the most 
part what he calls the H text.1 This text is practically 
identical with Westcott and Hort’s Neutral. The study 
of Cyril’s Gospel text has been seriously hindered by the 
method which the Oxford editor employed in publishing 
his Commentaries on St. John.” The discovery of further 
leaves of a papyrus of a work of Cyril confirms Von Soden’s 
conclusion as to the sort of text employed by him in the 
Gospels.? 

Bast OF CAESAREA (f 379), GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS 
(7 389 or 390), and Grecory or Nyssa (f 395?).—The three 
Cappadocian Fathers, as they are commonly called, all 
used, according to Von Soden, the same type of text, that 
found in the purple MSS. of the Gospels, already described. 
This text has ancient elements still present in it, but is in 
the main the same as the official ecclesiastical text asso- 
ciated with Constantinople and the regions under her 
influence. 


1 Die Schriften, u.s.w., §§ 336 (correct his index, Bd. i. p. 2178), 397, 457, 
492. 


2 Cf. Nestle’s Hinfiihrung, p. 159. 3 See p. 21 above. 
4 See pp. 9, 30 f. above. Von Soden, Die Schriften, u.s.w., pp. 1466 ff. 


vi.] PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 85 


CuRysostom ( 407) was the first great writer to use 
the fully developed ecclesiastical text, and his influence 
as Metropolitan of Constantinople and a distinguished 
preacher and commentator no doubt greatly extended its 
use. In fact, Von Soden makes him the first reviser of his ° 
K (or Κοινή) type of text, which is roughly that of the 
great bulk of our manuscripts.1 There are in him no 
traces of the Neutral text, but plenty of evidence that he 
was acquainted with ‘ Western’ texts?: for example, he 
knew the reading ἐπιψαύσεις τοῦ χριστοῦ in Eph. v. 14. 
These readings Von Soden thinks he got from Origen. 
Chrysostom never quoted the lesser Catholic Epistles or 
the Apocalypse. 

Later Greek Fathers, like Theodoret of Cyrus (7 ca. 458) 
and John of Damascus (f ca. 750), used substantially the 
same text as Chrysostom. 

Cosmas INDICOPLEUSTES, merchant of Alexandria (7 ca. 
550 ?), used in the Gospels a late Alexandrian type of text, 
like L, but in Acts employed a text almost identical 
with B? 

§ 2. LATIN WRITERS 


For the most part the evidence for the text of the Latin 
Fathers (including the biblical quotations cited by them) 
is much more abundant and in a much purer state than 
the Greek and Syriac evidence. Many of the Latin Fathers’ 
works exist in copies almost coeval with the authors 
themselves. There is extant quite a respectable number 
of sixth-century MSS. preserving works written by fourth- 
or fifth-century authors, and quite a cluster of MSS. of 
the works of Gregory the Great (+ 604) and the Venerable 
Bede (f 735), practically contemporary with the authors 
themselves. For the most part these precious MSS. lie 
unopened in the libraries of Europe, or are looked into 
only by the palzeographer and the cataloguer. The printed 


1 Die Schriften, u.s.w., § 332. 

2 Dean Robinson’s Sz. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (London, 1903, and 
later), p. 300. 

3 This fact becomes for the first time clear in E. O. Winstedt’s edition of 
Cosmas (Cambridge, 1909). 


86 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


editions of the Latin Fathers, with the exception of those 
in the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 
and a few others, are unreliable in questions of New Testa- 
ment textual criticism. The early editions were mostly 
printed from one MS. which happened to be accessible to 
the printer. If it were a fifteenth-century MS., so much 
the easier would the printer’s task be, as he could not but 
be familiar with a script practically contemporary with 
himself. Succeeding editors were often content to reprint 
without alteration, with slight improvement, or with 
alteration for the worse. But there is no longer any 
excuse for this, with the improved conditions of travel 
and the increased accessibility of MSS., and after the work 
of a century or so it will be possible to write a splendid 
account of the history of the Latin Bible, both Old-Latin 
and Vulgate. Meantime, only certain writers, whose 
texts are published (or accessible to the present writer) in 
primitive purity, can be alluded to here. 

TERTULLIAN of Carthage (7 222) wrote particularly in 
Latin, but also in Greek. He also sometimes used a 
Latin Bible, sometimes a Greek, probably oftener the 
former than the latter. It is improbable that his Greek 
Bible was very different in text from the Greek text under- 
lying his Latin Bible. A curious defect in one or other 
of these occurred in Hebrews vi. 5, where in the archetype 
of one of these rolls the text read : 

NOYS0YPHMAAYN 

AMEIZTEMEAA 

ONTOZAIONOSKAI 
The copyist, however, who wrote Tertullian’s copy, omitted 
the second line, and thus he reads δύνοντος. The character 
of his text in general is, of course, ‘ Western.’ Dr. Sanday 
long ago put the textual position in the Gospels thus: 
‘The hypothesis that Tertullian used a manuscript in the 
main resembling ὃ of the Old-Latin satisfies most elements 
of the problem.’! Iam informed that the Vienna edition, 


1 The best summary known to me of the Tertullianean evidence is in his 
Gospels in the Second Century (London, 1876), pp. 333-48. The quotation 
above made is from page 342. 


vu.] PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 87 


so far as it has appeared, does not exhibit the biblical 
quotations in an appreciably different form from that 
which they have in the good edition of Oehler. The Greek 
MS. with which Tertullian is in most frequent agreement 
is D; among Greek Fathers he finds his chief allies in 
Clement and Origen. He is farthest removed from B 
among the Greek MSS.! 

CyPRIAN.—In the Gospels, Cyprian of Carthage (f 258), 
a most accurate quoter, is practically identical with & in 
text. Sometimes one appears to be more primitive than 
the other, and the text has certainly some history behind 
it. In Acts and the Apocalypse Cyprian goes consistently 
with the fragmentary palimpsest known as fh. I have 
suggested that his text of the Pauline Epistles is the earliest 
for that part of the New Testament,? but this suggestion 
perhaps ought to be retracted, as 2 Tim. iv. 3 bears 
secondary traces (a double rendering of κνηθόμενοι τὴν 
ἀκοήν). 

NEMESIANUS OF TuBUNAS in Numidia, a contemporary 
of Cyprian, and, like him, present at the Rebaptism Synod 
of Carthage in 256, read the Epistles of Paul from a different 
translation.4 In some ways his form is nearer to Ter- 
tullian’s, and it is more probable that the rustic would use 
an earlier form than the citizen of the great capital. 

ΝΟΨΑΤΙΑΝ (or Novatus) of Rome ( 257 ?) used a text 
like a in St. John, and in the Epistles of Paul one related 
to d (see also Lucifer). 

HiLary oF ῬΟΙΤΙΒΕΕΒ (7 366) used in the Gospels a text 
having points of contact with r (the Irish-Latin Codex 
Usserianus of the sixth century). No doubt Great 
Britain and Ireland first got the Gospel from Gaul. 


1 It must, however, be noted that in Matt. i. 16 he agrees with & B and 


acs of MSS., just as he does in Luke i. 46, where he deserts his 
ally ὁ. 

2 Study of Ambrosiaster (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 213 f. 

8 Lactantius in Africa (saec. iv. early), Firmicus Maternus in Sicily (}saec. 
iv. med.), Zeno of Verona (+ 373?), Commodian (saec. v.) in Gaul, found it 
convenient to use Cyprian’s excerpts from Scripture in preference to Scrip- 
ture itself. 

4 See C. H. Turner in Journal of Theological Studies, vol. ii. (1900-1), 
pp. 602 ff. 


88 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


This sort of text, therefore, is what we should expect to 
find.1 

LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI in Sardinia (f 370 or 371). In the 
Gospel of John his text is the same as that of a, in Acts 
practically the same as gigas, and in the Epistles of Paul 
the same as that of d (except in the longer Epistles where 
d has been harmonised with the Vulgate). 

‘ AMBROSIASTER. —This writer (flor. 375-85 at Rome and 
in Spain), whose works were issued anonymously, but are 
attributed in manuscripts to Hilary, Ambrose, and Augus- 
tine, is generally agreed now to have been Isaac, a con- 
verted Jew, the enemy of Pope Damasus. His importance 
for the textual critic lies in the fact that one of his works 
is a commentary on the Pauline Epistles (excluding 
Hebrews), at the basis of one of the editions of which lies 
a complete Old-Latin text of the Epistles of Paul. The 
text, which is related to d and g (the Latin side of Codex 
Boernerianus, saec. ix.), is like that used by Ambrose, 
and may have been the very text which Jerome took as 
the basis of the Vulgate. The writer used a Gospel text 
like ὃ, but not exclusively. In Acts his text was identical 
with gigas. In the Apocalypse there are points of contact 
with the Old-African text preserved by Primasius (for 
which see below), and also with gigas. 

PRISCILLIAN of Spain ({ 385) used a text identical with 
m (the Speculum) in the Catholic Epistles, and in the 
Apocalypse a text which has points of contact with gigas. 
The prologues found in many Vulgate MSS. of the Gospels 
are probably his.2, No one seems as yet to have studied 
the relationship between the text used by this writer and 
his contemporary and compatriot, Gregory of Elvira 
(7 ca. 400 2). 

AMBROSE of Milan (f 397) based his works largely on 
Greek sources, and perhaps partly on this account is a 
very unsatisfactory quoter of the Latin Bible. In the 


1 Bonnassieux, Les Evangiles Synoptiques de S. Hilaire de P. (Lyon, 1906). 
2 See Dom Chapman in Revue Bénédictine, xxiii. (1906), pp. 335-49, or 
Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels (Oxford, 1908), chap. xiii. 


vi.] PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 89 


Gospels he appears to have employed a text like ff? (cf. 
Luke xxiv. 13), and in the [pistles of Paul perhaps the 
same text as the ‘ Ambrosiaster.’ 

JEROME (Eusebius Sofronius Hieronymus, f 420) was 
like Origen in his extensive knowledge of various types of 
text. In Luke he certainly used thea type. In Acts there 
are signs that he used a type related to gig and p (cf. ii. 
14-18 cited in Hpist. xli. 1, § 2 (p. 312, Hilberg)), but this 
was not the type he used as the basis of the Vulgate. In 
the Epistles of Paul we find him showing points of contact 
with d, m, Lucifer and Ambrosiaster, but perhaps he is a 
little nearer to his own Vulgate there than any of these 
other texts is. 

AvuGusTINE of Hippo Regius, in North Africa (7 430), 
used for the Gospels until about 400 a text like that of e, 
but after that date he used the Vulgate for long citations, 
while he still cited from memory in short passages the type 
with which he had been acquainted in his earlier days. 
In Acts, Apocalypse, and Catholic Epistles he used such 
a text as h. In the case of the Epistles of Paul he em- 
ployed a text like r, but it is to be remembered that this 
r is not unrelated to d.} 

PrLaaius (the oldest British writer of whom any work 
has survived) issued about 409 a commentary on the 
Pauline Epistles (excluding Hebrews) at Rome. ‘The text 
used appears to be Vulgate, as it agrees constantly with 
either Fuldensis or Amiatinus, and has porro at 1 Cor. 
vii. 35.2, But it has some readings which are not generally 
considered to be Vulgate ; for instance, it gives the positive 
form in Gal. ii. 5. If the text used by Pelagius be really 
pure Vulgate throughout, it is the earliest of all extant 
authorities for the Vulgate of the Pauline Epistles, and the 
divergences of leading Vulgate MSS. from the text used by 
him will have to be explained. Meantime, the text is 
not published, and it would be premature to decide finally 


1 Burkitt’s Old Latin and the Itala (Cambridge, 1896), p. 78; Journal 
of Theological Studies, xi. (1909-10), p. 464. 
2 See above, p. 50 


90 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


on the point. In Acts he used an Old-Latin text; for 
instance, he has the interpolation in chap. iv. 31. In the 
Catholic Epistles he shows points of contact with Codex 
Fuldensis. I hope to give further particulars in my 
edition. 

Patrick, the Apostle of the Irish (7 461), used in the 
Gospels a text with very ancient traits; for example, in 
John viii. 34 he omits τῆς ἁμαρτίας. 

FULGENTIUS OF RusPE in Africa (f 533) used in the 
Catholic Epistles a text the same as that now called q, 
sixth-century fragments now at Munich, but written in 
Spain, and probably for long preserved at Bobbio in North 
Italy.? 

Primasius, BisHop oF HApRUMETUM (Africa) ({ before 
567), compiled a commentary on the Apocalypse from 
earlier sources, like Victorinus of Poetouio (Pettau) (Ff 303), 
and Tichonius the Donatist (f before 400), which is inter- 
esting enough in itself. The value of the work to the New 
Testament textual critic is due to the fact that he used 
as the basis of the compilation a text of the Apocalypse 
over three hundred years older than his own time, namely, 
that of h Cyprian and Augustine. A commentary on the 
Epistles of Paul attributed to him accidentally by its first 
modern editor, Jean Gagney (Lyons, 1537), and since re- 
printed under his name, was recently proved to be the 
work of Cassiodorus and his pupils.* 

Casstoporus (f ca. 570), prime minister of Theodoric, 
retired about 540 to his ancestral estate of Vivarium, near 


1 The commentary was discovered by the present writer in its original 
form in July 1906 at Karlsruhe: readings are given according to the sole MS. 
in my apparatus to the Greek Testament. See The Commentary of Pelagius 
on the Epistles of Paul: the Problem of its Restoration (Proceedings of the 
British Academy, vol. ii.), (London, 1907); Journal of Theological Studies, 
viii. (1906-7), pp. 526-36. It will be published in the Cambridge Texts and 
Studies. 

2 See Traube, Nomina Sacra (Miinchen, 1907), pp. 190 f. 

3 See Haussleiter in Zahn’s Forschungen, iv. (1890). Hans von Soden, Das 
lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians (Leipzig, 1909). 

4 This view, suggested first by C. H. Turner, Journal of Theological 
Studies, iv. (1902-3), pp. 140 f., was conclusively proved right by the present 
writer: Tae Commentary of Pelagius on the Epistles of Paul: the Problem 
of its Restoration (London, 1907), p. 20. 


vu.] PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 91 


Squillace, in the very south of Italy. There he founded 
a seminary for the training of clergy, and for their use 
equipped an admirable theological library, a full description 
of which is provided in his IJnstitutiones Diuinarum et 
Saecularium Lectionum. The most interesting part of 
this work is the place where he speaks about the Bibles in 
this library. Both the Old-Latin and the Vulgate were 
represented. It has been proved beyond all doubt that our 
Codex Aniatinus in the Gospels is descended from the New 
Testament part of his copy of the Vulgate. In his time 
Pelagius on the Epistles was in wide use as an anony- 
mous work, the real authorship of which seems to have 
been unsuspected. Cassiodorus, however, scented Pelagian- 
ism in it, and rewrote the Commentary on Romans, leaving 
the Commentaries on the other Epistles to be treated by 
his pupils in the same way. ‘This anti-pelagianised Pelagius 
survives in print under the name Primasius: the only 
surviving MS. of the work, however, is anonymous, like 
the work of which it is a revision. Now that both Pelagius 
and Cassiodorus and Co. have been identified, it is possible 
to study the treatment applied by Cassiodorus and his 
pupils. Weare here concerned only with the biblical text. 
Pelagius’s text, as we have seen, is Vulgate. This text 
Cassiodorus in Romans revises to a form almost verbally 
identical throughout with Codex Amiatinus. His pupils, 
however, in the other Epistles, wherever they have altered 
Pelagius’s text, have altered it to agree with a form of the 
Old-Latin not unlike d. As a matter of fact, Cassiodorus 
himself, in his Complexiones in E'pistulas, Acta Apostolorum, 
et Apocalypsin, has used a text of exactly the same kind, 
and not the Vulgate. He, like Gregory the Great, his later 
contemporary, used now one, now the other.! 

The VENERABLE BEDE (f 735) links up with Cassiodorus, 
as he used in Northumbria Cassiodorian Bibles, or parts 
of Bibles, brought from Italy by Benedict Biscop and 


1 Tam much indebted to Dom Chapman for lending me an investigation he 
had himself made into the text of Pseudo-Primasius; cf. his article in the 
Revue Bénédictine, xxviii. (1911), pp. 283-95. 


‘ 


92 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


Ceolfrid. His biblical text is greatly disguised in the 
bad edition of Dr. Giles. For example, in his Commentary 
on the Epistle of James, Bede used a text nearly identical 
with Codex Amiatinus, as a collation of the Bodleian MS. 
dated 818 has shown me; but no one would suspect this 
from the late doctored form of the text which Dr. Giles 
prints. Bede is fond of comparing the Old-Latin and the 
Vulgate, as Dr. Plummer has pointed out in his admirable 
edition of the historical works. Bede on Acts, as we have 
already seen, used E (Codex Laudianus).2 A scientific 
edition of the complete works of Bede is one of the prime 
necessities of patristic scholarship, and it ought to be a 
point of honour with this country to supply it. 

Farther down we need not go, though the subject is 
far from being exhausted. All the medieval Latin com- 
mentaries also must be critically edited before they can 
yield up their evidence for the history of the New Testa- 
ment. Some have never even been printed.? 


§ 3. ΒΎΒΙΑΟ WRITERS 


For a full account of these, as affecting the text of the 
Gospels, the reader is referred to Burkitt’s Evangelion da- 
Mepharreshé, vol. ii. pp. 110-212. 

Acts of Judas Thomas.—This work, written originally in 
Syriac, exhibits quotations from the Gospels neither accord- 
ing to the Diatessaron, nor according to the Peshitta, but 
according to the Old-Syriac.4 In no other work are the 
traces of the Old-Syriac so clear. 

APHRAATES, whose Homilies were composed in 337, 344, 
and 345, uses the Diatessaron habitually, but has coin- 
cidences in language with the Old-Syriac. He has practi- 
cally no points of contact with the Peshitta exclusively.® 


1 Tom i. (Oxford, 1896), pp. liv f. 
2 P. 29. 


3 For instance, some of Claudius of Turin’s (saec. ix. in.) commentaries on 
the Pauline Epistles, preserved in MSS. almost coeval with the author. 

4 Burkitt, ii. pp. 101 ff. 

5 Op. cit., pp. 109 ff. 


γπ.}]Ώ PATRISTIC (AND OTHER EARLY) CITATIONS 93 


It is not possible to say much of Aphraates’s quotations 
from the Epistles of Paul. 

St. ΕΡΗΒΑῈΜ Syrvus’s works (f 373) have been badly 
edited. An examination of the MSS. of his works has 
shown Burkitt that Ephraim had no knowledge of the 
Peshitta, as used to be thought, but used the Diatessaron 
only, in citing the Gospels.1 This discovery cleared the 
way for the correct dating of the Peshitta. 

IsHO‘DAD OF MeRv.—See above, pages 78 f. 


1 §. Hphraem’s Quotations from the Gospel (Cambridge, 1901); Hwang. da- 
Mepharreshé, ii. pp. 112 ff. 


94 ΤΗ͂Σ TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cu. 


CHAPTER VIII 


PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE GREEK NEW 
TESTAMENT AND VERSIONS 


§ 1. GREEK 
First Period 


THE honour of printing the earliest edition of the Greek 
New Testament belongs to the distinguished Spanish 
Cardinal Ximenes (Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros), who 
planned a great Bible, known now as the CoMPLUTENSIAN 
POLYGLOT, because it was published at the (then 1) univer- 
sity town of Alcala de Henares (Lat. Complutum), twenty- 
two miles east of Madrid, and birthplace of Cervantes. 
Ximenes employed for this work especially a fellow- 
countryman, Iago Lopez de Stunica. The printing of the 
New Testament was ended on 10th January 1514. The 
publication of the entire work, of which the printing came 
to an end on 10th July 1517, was delayed, because the Pope, 
Leo x., deferred his permission till 22nd March 1520, owing 
to the fact that two Vatican MSS., which had been lent 
for the purpose of the edition, had not been returned. 
Six hundred copies only were printed, and few survive. 
The New Testament is in two columns—the Greek text 
on the left, and a Latin translation on the right. Know- 
ledge of Greek was exceedingly rare outside Italy at this 
time, and the learner was aided by this word-for-word 
translation, equipped with symbols giving a key to each 
word in the Greek. The accented syllable in each Greek 
word was provided with an acute accent. With regard 


1 The university was transferred to Madrid early last century. 


vi.] PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 95 


to the manuscripts employed for the text of the New 
Testament nothing can be said except that they must 
have been late. Probably one MS. of each group of books 
was used as ‘copy’ for the printer, being modified where 
the editor or editors considered it was wrong. The printing 
of the work is carefully done. 

The delay in the receipt of the papal permission enabled 
another edition, though printed later, to be published earlier 
than the Complutensian. This was the work of the brilliant 
humanist, Desiderius Erasmus (Geert Geerts), of Rotterdam, 
and appeared at Basle in Switzerland in 1516. The enter- 
prising and scholarly publisher of that city, John Froben, 
wrote on 15th March 1515 to Erasmus, who was then in 
England, and summoned him to Basle to undertake the 
edition. This the versatile scholar agreed to do, and the 
pair worked with such incredible speed that the volume 
issued from the press on Ist March 1516. The task took 
only ten months, and probably not more than about seven 
MSS. were employed, most of which are still at Basle.1 
The MSS., with one exception (now numbered 1), were 
neither ancient nor valuable. The last six verses of the 
Apocalypse were wanting in the only MS. of that book 
he had, and he retranslated them (except verse 20, where 
he had Laurentius Valla’s translation) from the Vulgate 
Latin, owning to what he had done.? The book is full of 
printers’ errors, and in the Apocalypse the Complutensian 
gives a better text. Erasmus added a Latin translation 
of his own, and explanatory notes. Further issues of 
Erasmus’s edition appeared in 1519 (for which an extra 
MS. was used), 1522 (where 1 John v. 7 was introduced 
from a forged entry in a sixteenth-century MS., now at 
Dublin), 1527 (for which the Complutensian was used, and 
the Vulgate added), and 1535. 

Here and elsewhere considerations of space compel the 
omission of various editions. 


1 The MS. he used for the Apocalypse is at Maihingen (Germany). 
7 3 νων also in the Apocalypse (4.9. vi. 1, etc.) we find traces of his 
an . 


96 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


Robert Estienne (Latinised Robertus StEPHANUS), royal 
printer at Paris, published there in 1546, with the help of 
his son Henri (HENRICUS), a Greek New Testament in two 
little volumes. This edition was based on preceding 
editions, especially the last Erasmian. A second edition 
appeared in 1549. To 1550 belongs the third edition, in 
folio, called ‘ regia,’ a sumptuous volume, which was de- 
stined to play a great part in the history of the printed 
Greek New Testament. This is the earliest edition of all 
to contain a critical apparatus, that is, a record of variations 
in reading exhibited by the authorities. For it fifteen 
manuscripts were employed, but their use hardly affects 
the text. Already there seems to have arisen a fictitious 
worship for the letter of Erasmus’s last edition, and often 
what is now regarded as unquestionably the right reading 
is to be found on Stephanus’s inner margin, not in his text. 
Nearly all Stephanus’s MSS. can still be identified. A later 
issue is that of 1551 (published at Geneva, where the editor 
retired on proclaiming his Protestantism), which is the first 
edition of the New Testament to contain our modern 
verses, the work of Stephanus himself. 

The next editions of note are those of Théodore de Béze 
(Theodorus ΒΕΖΑ), of which the most interesting is that 
published at Geneva in 1582. For this D and Dpaul as well 
as other fresh authorities were used.1 

Printers’ enterprise continued to play a great part in 
the dissemination of the Greek New Testament. Of this 
there is no more conspicuous example than that of the 
Elzevir editions, published at Leiden, seven in number, 
from 1624 to 1678. In the preface to the second edition 
(1633) occur the innocent words, to which a meaning never 
intended was afterwards for long attached: ‘ TExtTUM ergo 
habes, nunc ab omnibus RECEPTUM, in quo nihil immutatum 
aut corruptum damus.’ The first was simply a reprint of 
Beza’s 1565 edition, and the others varied but little from 
it. The text, which was to enslave the Greek Testament 
student for two hundred years and more, was based really 


1 There are traces of these in Stephanus’s 1550 edition already, however. 


vi.] PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 97 


on Erasmus’s last edition, the Complutensian Polyglot, and 
a handful of manuscripts—in fact, on something like a 
hundredth part of the Greek evidence now at our disposal, 
not to speak of versions and citations. Estienne’s 1550 
text ruled in England, and the Elzevir on the Continent, 
the two being practically identical. Till 1904 the British 
and Foreign Bible Society continued to circulate this 
Elzevir text. 

The LonpoN PoLyGLoT next deserves mention, as a 
monumental work not even yet entirely superseded. It 
appeared in 1657, edited by Brian Walton (afterwards 
Bishop of Chester), aided by other great British scholars. 
A very large body of various readings is presented in this 
work, but the text remains practically that of Stephanus’s 
1550. The anonymous edition of John Fell, afterwards 
Bishop of Oxford, was published at Oxford in 1675, a little 
volume somewhat dumpy, yet not without charm. Various 
readings are under the text, which is Elzevir’s 1633 slightly 
altered. Collations of previously unused MSS., preserved 
at Oxford, Paris, and Dublin, were employed, and some 
of the ancient versions were studied with care. 

The closing edition of the first period must not be men- 
tioned without a reference to two great critics who belong 
to this period, and whose work has very great significance 
for the study of the Greek New Testament, though neither 
published an edition. Lucas of Bruges (BRUGENSIS) in 
his brief Notae ad Varias Lectiones Editionis Graecae 
Evangeliorum, published in 1606, was probably the earliest 
scholar to make use of all three sources for the New Testa- 
ment text.1 RicHarD Simon, a French Oratorian, pub- 
lished three great works at Rotterdam in 1689, 1690, and 
1693 respectively : Hustotre critique du texte du Nouveau 
Testament (English translation, London, 1689), Histoire 
critique des versions du Nouveau Testament (English trans- 
lation, London, 1692), and Histoire critique des principaux 
commentateurs du Nouveau Testament (hardly obtainable 


1 Ὁ, H. Turner in Murray’s Jilustrated Dictionary of the Bible (art. ‘New 
Testament, Text of’), p. 585 A. 


G 


98 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


in the original, and never translated into English; even 
yet by far the most valuable authority on its subject).? 
It would be impossible to exaggerate the value and sug- 
gestiveness of Simon’s works. 

This first period is the period of a stereotyped text, 
taken from late manuscripts, but men began in it to write 
about New Testament criticism. 


Second Period 


John Mitt, who began to prepare an edition of the 
Greek Testament in 1677, continued his work for thirty 
years: for it was not till 1707 that his great work saw the 
light. Mill presents Estienne’s text of 1550 but for a 
handful of passages. The real value of his edition consists 
in the abundance of textual material collected and in the 
masterly introduction not yet entirely superseded. He 
made or procured collations of a number of previously 
unused Greek MSS., and spent much labour on the ancient 
versions, especially the Old-Latin and the Vulgate. He 
was the first editor to give due weight to the patristic 
citations of the New Testament, especially Greek and 
Latin. 

Richard BENTLEY (1662-1742), Master of Trinity College, 
Cambridge, one of the greatest classical scholars of this 
or any country, was the first great textual critic to plan 
an edition. His knowledge of both Greek and Latin was 
colossal, his familiarity with manuscripts and the ways of 
scribes was no less wonderful, and he had a vision of a 
Greek and a Latin text restored to the state in which they 
were in the fourth century. He believed that, given MSS. 
of pure text, we should see no difference between the Greek 
and the Latin but difference of language at that period. 
At an early age he began to correspond with various 
savants on the subject, and in 1720 he published the 
proposals for his edition. His chief collaborator was John 

1 Add also Nouvelles Observations sur le texte et les versions du Nouveau 


Testament (Paris, 1695). Simon’s works gave rise to a small library of con- 
troversial literature, most of which is now forgotten. 


vur.] PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 99 


Walker, Fellow of Trinity, whose collections have survived. 
All this great preparation produced no edition, however. 
It was not the opposition which the obscurantist Conyers 
Middleton, author of a respectable Life of Cicero, sought 
to arouse against him, but rather the feeling that he had 
been too optimistic about the settled state of the text in 
the fourth century, and about the possibility of arriving 
at it in his own time, that prevented the publication of the 
edition. Bentley’s work must not be overlooked. The 
impulse he gave to these studies was such, that but for 
him there would have been no Lachmann and no 
Hort. 

Mace (1720), Bowyer (1772), and Harwood (1776), the 
first and the last being Nonconformists, did pioneer work, 
which availed little in their own generation but to arouse 
mulish obstinacy against their efforts. 

John Albert BENGEL, author of the ‘Gnomon,’ a com- 
mentary no less distinguished for its spiritual than for its 
philological insight, published a Greek New Testament at 
Tubingen in 1734. He was the first editor to introduce the 
principle, now almost universally recognised, that authori- 
ties must be classified and weighed, not counted. 

J. J. WETTSTEIN edited the Greek Testament in two folio 
volumes (Amsterdam, 1751-2), with a learned comment- 
ary. So valuable is the amount of illustrative material, 
particularly from classical and Jewish literature, that those 
who know the commentary best would not hesitate to 
place it first among all that ever one man has produced. 
It is no less valuable to-day than it was before, though 
succeeding commentators have plundered it.1_ He prints 
the Elzevir text, but below it he gives the readings which 
are in his opinion genuine. He was the first to employ 
the modern method of indicating manuscripts by letters 
and numbers—a method which has stood the test of a cen- 
tury and a half, and has doubtless still a long life before 


1 May I join my plea to that of Professor Adolf Deissmann of Berlin that 
a new edition of this work should be undertaken? No one could render a 
greater service to New Testament study than by devoting a lifetime to the 
satisfactory performance of this task. 


100 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


it, especially as the defects of the system have been removed 
by Professor Gregory. 

J. J. GrresBacu published the Greek New Testament at 
Halle, the first edition in 1774-7, the second in 1796-1806.” 
The apparatus he compiled is rich in all the three classes 
of evidence, in the study of which he had thoroughly 
trained himself. Succeeding editors have learnt a deal from 
him. He first distinguished a Western, an Alexandrian, 
and a Byzantine recension, much as Von Soden now does. 

C. F. MarruHagr’s editions appeared in 1782-8 and 
1803-7. He was a most industrious and accurate collator 
of manuscripts, both of the New Testament and of the 
commentaries of St. Chrysostom. These manuscripts, 
preserved at Moscow, had come from Athos, and were of 
considerable importance. 

A. Birch collected variae lectiones from the manuscripts 
of Denmark (1798, 1800, 1801), and F. C. Alter performed 
a similar service for those at Vienna (1787, 1786). 

Strong interest in the Greek New Testament has not 
been characteristic of the Church of Rome, but J. M. A. 
ScHoLz published in 1830 and 1836 a handsome quarto 
edition. The text printed is practically Griesbach’s. 
Scholz’s principal service is his description of a large number 
of MSS. previously unexamined, but he was not very 
accurate. 

He closes the second period, a period of strife between 
those who followed the so-called teatus receptus blindly, 
and those who were determined to secure the most ancient 
witnesses they could and to trust them. The inferior 
character of the bulk of the later testimony was now evident 
to the trained critics as a whole. It was reserved for the 
third period to shake itself entirely free of the shackles 
of the textus receptus, and to make glorious attempts to 
restore the words of the original autographs as nearly as 
possible, by concentrating attention on the oldest and 
purest evidence attainable. 


1 Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig, 1908). 
2 The smaller editions of 1805 and 1803-7 must also be mentioned. 


vi.] PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 101 


Third Period 

If Bentley is the great hero of the second period, his 
understudy, Carl LacHMaAnNN, is the protagonist of the 
third. Like Bentley, he had breathed the bracing air of 
classical philology. With a ‘ desperate hook’ like that of 
his master he slashed off the great mass of the later evidence, 
and succeeded in achieving very much what the English 
philologist desired to do. Of several editions which he 
brought out the most significant is that of 1842-50, in 
which both the Greek and the Vulgate Latin are presented 
in the greatest purity that Lachmann and his colleague 
P. Buttmann could attain. The introduction is com- 
parable to Mill’s and Hort’s in importance. His aim was 
to secure the text in widest use in Jerome’s time, leaving 
it to emendation and conjecture to get behind that. As 
_ his foundation he took A Β C, H (some portions), a few 
other uncials, and Origen. These witnesses, of course, do 
not provide a complete New Testament, and Origen is not 
fourth century ; sometimes he was reduced to A only, 
sometimes to B only, and the latter and C were imperfectly 
known. When the Eastern authorities did not agree, he 
turned to D? G? abcd d? ff g, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Hilary, 
Lucifer, and, for the Apocalypse, Primasius. The third 
line consisted of ‘ mixed ’ witnesses, D E e and the Vulgate. 
Even these, of course, are not adequate to represent the 
West clearly. When all these authorities fail to produce 
any evidence, or what he believes to be the right reading, 
he turns to the late ordinary MSS. This of course is a 
makeshift, but even the late MSS. must have really ancient 
elements in them. The defects of material and the lesser 
defects in method, which in a weak man would have 
wrought destruction, were often surmounted by the critical 
acumen of Lachmann, whose thews were being all the while 
tightened by his grapples with the hard textual problem 
of Lucretius. Lachmann would certainly have done at 
least what Westcott and Hort did, if he had had the 
materials they had at his disposal. 


ai 
ΒΡ- 


102 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


G. F. C. TiscHeNDoRF (1815-74) edited more New Testa- 
ment documents and more editions of the New Testament 
than any other scholar who ever lived. His greatest 
services are his discovery of Codex Sinatticus and his eighth 
edition of the Greek Testament (completed 1872), the 
largest repertory of authorities and the fullest critical 
apparatus which exists. The great aim of his life of un- 
ceasing industry seems to have been to edit carefully as 
many of the very oldest Greek and Latin New Testament 
documents as he could discover. He thus edited x, B, 
CE, etc., among Greek uncials, and Codex Amiatinus of 
the Latin Vulgate. In his eighth edition it is generally 
held that he gave too much weight to the readings of x. 

S. P. TREGELLES (1813-75), his English contemporary, 
worked very much on parallel lines, doing much collation 
of early documents. His edition, which comprises not 
only the Greek text in large clear type, but also a large 
and well-arranged apparatus, as well as the text of the 
Vulgate from Codex Amiatinus, appeared from 1857 to 
1872 (prolegomena, 1879). Among Greek writers he does 
not cite any later than Eusebius, and among Latin none 
later than Lucifer, except Primasius. His text is close to 
Lachmann’s, and would have been nearer Tischendorf’s 
than it is, if it had not been for the greater amount of 
material at Tischendorf’s disposal. Tregelles’s great service 
was to draw English-speaking scholars away from the 
textus receplus. 

J. W. Burgon and F. H. Scrivener did not publish 
recensions, but both did useful work in collating minuscule 
MSS., and Burgon also made a wonderful collection of 
references to New Testament quotations in the Fathers, 
now preserved in the British Museum.1 They were both, 
on the whole, defenders of the textus receptus, and Burgon’s 
views found a vigorous exponent in E. Miller.2. These 
writers appear to have left few, if any, successors. 


1 Paul de Lagarde (formerly Botticher) indexed the quotations of Augustine. 
His index is in the library of Gdttingen University. 

2 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels .. . (London, 1896); The Causes 
of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London, 1896) ; 


vinl.] PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 103 


The greatest edition ever published is that by Brooke 
Foss Westcott (fj Bishop of Durham, 1901) and Fenton 
John Anthony Horr (f Lady Margaret Professor of 
Divinity, Cambridge, 1892). It was published in 1881] 
almost coincidently with the Revised Version of the 
English New Testament, on which it had exercised much 
influence, as it had been in the hands of revisers for several 
years in proof. Westcott and Hort spent twenty-eight 
years over this work, exchanging with one another a 
voluminous correspondence on the subject, the publication 
of which is expected at no distant date. The spade-work, 
the originating work, seems to have been for the most 
part done by Hort, but his views were always subjected 
to the closest attention by his colleague, and the work is 
therefore to be regarded as a joint work, for which both 
were equally responsible. Their aim was not so much to 
collect fresh materials—though the discerning will discover 
traces enough of these—but to value all the mass of evidence 
already gathered together by their predecessors down to 
Tischendorf and Tregelles. Their introduction, in which 
textual principles are enunciated with convincing power, 
and a brilliant classification and characterisation of authori- 
ties are given, is an achievement never surpassed in the 
scholarship of any country. The notes on select readings 
are only less valuable. The uninitiated reader ought 
probably to be informed that behind such a brief and 
succinct statement as that on the New Testament text of 
St. Irenaeus (Introduction, § 220) there lies an exhaustive 
investigation of the problem by Hort himself, which the 
present writer has been privileged to read. Their work is 
held in the highest esteem in all civilised countries,! and 
on the foundation they have laid the future will do well 


A Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels (Matt. i.-xiv.) (London, 1899). 
Much of the evidence in these works is in an impure state, through the use 
of faulty editions. 

1 No better proof is needed than the fact that Bernhard Weiss’s text 
[i. 1894 (2nd ed. 1902), ii. 1896 (2nd ed. 1902), iii. 1900 (2nd ed. 1905)] differs 
little from Westcott and Hort’s. His readings can be most readily obtained 
in Εἰ. Nestle’s handy and accurate edition of the New Testament (Stuttgart 
Bible Society), Ist ed. 1898, 7th ed. 1908. 


104 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


to build. The following chapters will outline their prin- 
ciples. 

Their edition is the first to place readings in the margin 
that in their opinion are equally well attested with those 
put by them in the text. They also put some Western 
readings in the margin, with a special symbol, on the 
ground that they are interesting, and have very ancient 
attestation. A further specialty of the edition is the use 
of the obelus (dagger +) where they regard the text as 
corrupt and in need of emendation. 

Of minor works, which are not fresh recensions, but 
handy reports of the conclusions of the chief editors of 
recent years, two deserve mention: The Resultant Greek 
Testament, exhibiting the Text in which the majority of 
Modern Editors are agreed, and containing the readings of 
Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Light- 
foot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, the Bale Edition (1880), 
Westcott and Hort and the Revision Committee, by R. F. 
Weymouth (8rd edition, London, 1905); Novum Testa- 
mentum Graece cum apparatu’ critico ex editionibus et libris 
manu scriptis collecto (Stuttgart, Privilegierte Wurttem- 
bergische Bibelanstalt, 7th edition, 1908), by Eberhard 
Nestle. The latter provides a text based on the agreement 
of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weiss, or of any 
two of these three. Other features are a select critical 
apparatus, in which particular attention is paid to the 
readings of Codex Bezae ; the Eusebian canons and sections ; 
indications of parallel passages in other Gospels; para- 
graphs and Old Testament quotations specially marked as 
in Westcott and Hort. The same text is published in his 
centenary edition of the British and Foreign Bible Society 
(June 1904 and later), but, instead of the apparatus of the 
Stuttgart edition, this edition is provided with matter 
specially interesting to the English reader—namely, a 
conspectus of all the differences between the text printed 
and the Greek texts behind our Authorised and Revised 
Versions respectively. The text behind the Revised 
Version was published by E. Palmer (Oxford, 1881, and 


vi.] PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 105 


later). What Palmer did was to substitute in the Stephanus 
text the alterations on which the revisers had agreed: the 
result is that old and new elements are both present. The 
sense, however, is not disturbed by this procedure, and the 
text has remained standard in the University of Oxford. 
In 1910 it was issued afresh with an up-to-date critical 
apparatus showing select variants, the work of the present 
writer, who had the advantage of Dr. Sanday’s counsel and 
experience. 

The Introduction to an edition which will probably not 
be long delayed has been provided by Freiherr Professor 
Hermann von Soden of the University of Berlin. In bulk 
this work far surpasses anything before attempted. The 
title of the first volume, containing this Introduction, all 
that is yet published, is Die Schriften des Neuen T'estaments 
on threr dltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, hergestellt auf Grund 
threr Textgeschichte (‘The Writings of the New Testament 
in their oldest attainable form of text, established on the 
basis of their textual history’).1 Some account of the 
author’s views will be found in a later chapter. Meantime, 
suffice it to say that far more minuscule MSS. have been 
examined for this work than for any other. 


§ 2. LATIN (ESPECIALLY VULGATE) 


The earliest book printed from movable types was 
fittingly a Latin Bible. The work of Gutenberg, it was 
produced at Mainz (Mayence) on the Rhine between 1450 
and 1453. It is often called the Mazarin BIBLz, after 
Cardinal Mazarin, who had all a Frenchman’s love of 
objets art, and possessed a copy in his wonderful library. 
This edition is in double columns, with forty-two lines to 
the column.” About forty copies in all are known to have 
survived, but apparently only two, one at Munich and 
another at Vienna, are in an absolutely complete state.% 


1 Berlin, 1902—(May) 1910, pp. 2203, royal 8vo. 

2 Portions of the first issue have forty and forty-one lines to the column. 

3 Both Monsieur H. Welter (Paris), in March 1910, and the Insel-Verlag 
(Leipzig), in July 1910, have advertised a facsimile of this book. From the 
prospectuses I borrow the above particulars, 


106 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


So far as I know, the edition has no special value from 
the textual critic’s point of view. The early editions were 
all printed from ordinary manuscript Bibles of the thirteen 
or fourteenth century, of a type still existing in abundance. 

This was followed by a multitude of editions, differing 
probably little from one another in text, for about a 
hundred and fifty years. Of these perhaps the most 
important are the following. Those of Robertus Stephanus, 
especially that of 1538-40 ; for this edition Stephanus used 
seventeen manuscripts, most of them of good quality and 
still identifiable, as well as three printed editions.1 Another 
interesting edition is the Henten edition, published by 
Jean Henten of Mechlin at Louvain in 1547, and often 
later. Two other editions are of special interest to Roman 
Catholics: the Sixtine edition, published at Rome 1590, 
and the drastic revision of it called the Clementine issued 
two years later, also at Rome. This latter is the standard 
text of the Church of Rome, and will not soon be replaced. 
It has very often been reprinted, lastly and most con- 
veniently by E. Nestle (Stuttgart, 1906, and later). These 
four editions are fairly representative of the older methods 
of editing. There have been attempts more or less system- 
atic, within Romanism itself, to improve the official text, 
but no editor of the Roman Church has as yet issued a 
revised text.” 

This has been reserved for the Church of England, which 
has done more than any other for biblical study from the 
very beginning of its long history. Dr. John WoRDSWoRTH, 
grandnephew of the poet and Bishop of Salisbury, with his 
colleague Professor Henry Julian Wurre of King’s College, 
London, have with enormous labour produced an edition 
of the Gospels, Acts, and Romans (1889-1912),? based 
upon collations of some forty select MSS., and provided 

1 See the masterly gespreey by Bishop Wordsworth, Old-Latin Biblical 
Texts, i. (Oxford, 1883), pp. 4 

2 For a list of editions of ἢ Vulgate, compare C. Vercellone’s Variae 
Lectiones, i. pp. xevi-civ and ii. pp. xxi-xxvi, and Wordsworth and White, 
Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Latine, pars prior (Oxon., 


1889-98), pp. xxviii-xxxi, 721-24. 
3 Romans is not at the moment of writing actually published. 


vit.] PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 107 


with a copious critical apparatus, with full introductions 
and appendix, dealing with all the fundamental questions. 
The Vatican in 1908 undertook a fresh critical recension 
of the Vulgate of the whole Bible, to be carried out by 
members of the Benedictine Order, under the editorship 
of Abbot Gasquet, Superior of the English Congregation : 
the work is proceeding steadily, and every confidence may 
be felt in the result. 

Meantime, the British and Foreign Bible Society has 
followed its up-to-date Greek Testament with a handy 
critical edition of the Vulgate, with short apparatus, 
edited by Professor White. 


Of the Old-Latin we have, of course, no complete uniform 
monument. The first printed edition of any part of an 
Old-Latin version was Dom Martianay’s edition, published 
in 1695, of the Corbey St. James (ff), now at St. Petersburg, 
with other material. The Old-Latin version in all shapes 
and forms known at the time was worthily published in the 
truly monumental work of Dom Pierre SaBATIER, pub- 
lished at Paris and Rheims in 1743. This work must still 
be consulted by all who desire as complete as possible an 
account of Old-Latin readings in any particular place. 
Much new evidence, and much purer evidence, has accrued 
since Sabatier’s time, but to obtain it completely it is neces- 
sary to consult a host of volumes. It is understood that 
Herr Josef Denk of Munich has practically completed a 
new Sabatier, in which full account is taken of all evidence 
published since his time. Old-Latin texts of particular 
parts of Scripture have been published in various forms 
during the last century and a half, and a complete collection 
of these constitutes a small library in itself. The Oxford 
collection of OLD-LaTIN BrBLicaL Texts, by Wordsworth, 
Sanday, White, and Buchanan, of which six volumes have 
been published, is the most notable published achievement 
in this field since Sabatier. 


1 Vol. i. (g of Matthew); vol. 11. (k of Matthew-Mark, and many » other 
Gospel fragments) ; vol. iii. ᾧ of the Gospels) ; vol. iv. (5 of Acts and Catholic 
Epistles) ; vol. v. (773 of Gospels and h of Acts, ete.) ; vol. vi. (6 of Gospels). 
Vol. vii. will be the New Testament text of St. Irenaeus, 


108 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cu. 


§ 3. SyRIAC 


Of the Diatessaron in its present state the English reader 
will find a rendering in Hamlyn Hill’s Earliest Infe of Christ 
(last edition, Edinburgh, 1910), and in Ante-Nicene Chris- 
tian Library, additional volume, ed. A. Menzies (Edin- 
burgh, 1897). 

The Old-Syriac text is best studied in F. C. Burkitt’s 
Evangelion da-Mepharreshé, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1904), and 
Mrs. Lewis’s later edition (London, 1910). 

The best edition of the Peshitta, for the Gospels, is 
Pusey and Gwilliam’s, with literal Latin translation (Oxon., 
1901). For the rest of the New Testament, the editio 
princeps of Widmanstadt (1555), or Schaaf’s (Lugd. Bat., 
1708-9, etc.) may be used. There is a handy edition pub- 
lished by the Bible Society. 

Of the pure Philoxenian the four Catholic Epistles not 
in the Peshitta Canon have been published (Remnants of 
the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible (London, 1909)), and 
the Apocalypse (Dublin, 1897), both by Dr. John Gwynn. 
The Harclean Version should be read in the edition of 
Joseph White (Oxford, 1778-1803). A new edition is 
much wanted. 

The fragments of the Palestinian (erroneously called the 
Jerusalem) Syriac must be sought in various publications. 
The chief is: ‘The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the 
Gospels, re-edited from two Sinai MSS., and from P. de 
Lagarde’s edition of the Hvangeliarium Hierosolymitanum,’ 
by A. S. Lewis and M. D. Gibson (London, 1899). 


§ 4. EGYPTIAN 


The Sahidic Version of the Gospels with exact English 
translation and abundant apparatus has been published 
by the Clarendon Press in three volumes, March 1911, 
edited by the Rev. G. W. Horner. Other parts of the 
New Testament must meantime be sought in Balestri’s 
continuation of Ciasca’s edition of fragments, vol. ii., and 
in various articles. A MS. of Acts is edited by Dr. Budge 


vi.] PRINTED EDITIONS OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 109 


in Coptic Biblical Texts of the British Museum (London, 
1911). 

The Bohairic Version of the New Testament was pub- 
lished by the Clarendon Press in four volumes, 1898 to 
1905, edited by Mr. Horner, with English translation, and 
full apparatus. 

Fayyumic and other fragments must be sought in such 
publications as W. E. Crum, Coptic MSS. brought from the 
Fayum, Leipoldt, Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Berliner 
Museen, i. 5, and Gaselee in Journal of Theological Studies, 
vol. xi. pp. 514 ff. 


§ 5. GOTHIC 


The surviving fragments of the version have been edited 
by Gabelentz and Loebe (1836-43). The handiest edition, 
which is also good, is that of Streitberg: Die gotische 
Bibel herausgegeben von Wilhelm Streitberg, Jer Teil 
(Heidelberg, 1908). This contains not only the text and 
its Greek original, but introductory and other material of 
value. Add, of course, the fragment above referred to, 
published by Glaue.1_ The Gospel of Mark has been edited 
by Professor Skeat (Oxford, 1882). 


§ 6. ARMENIAN 


Twenty manuscripts were used for the edition of Zohrab 
(Zohrap), published in 1789, and since reprinted by the 
Bible Society. A photographic edition of a ninth-century 
MS. containing the Gospels was published at Moscow in 
1899. The best edition of the Apocalypse is that of Dr. 
F. C. Conybeare, The Armenian Version of Revelation... 
[with English translation]. (London, 1907.) 


§ 7. ETHIOPIC 


The first edition appeared at Rome in 1548 (1549), but 
it is said that neither it nor any later edition is satisfactory. 


1 See page 44, 


110 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


The latest is J. Pell Platt’s edition, revised by Fr. Pratorius 
(Leipzig, 1899). 


§ 8. GEORGIAN 


The first edition, printed at Moscow in 1743, is susceptible 
of very great improvement, in view of the very considerable 
number of really old MSS. that have survived. Dr. F. C. 
Conybeare, in articles already mentioned, has shown this 
as well as the interest of the version. 


§ 9. ARABIC 


The Gospels were published by De Lagarde in 1864 from 
four manuscripts at Vienna. The earliest edition is dated 
Rome 1591. 


1 See page 74. 


1x. ] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM ill 


CHAPTER IX 
PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM, ETC. 


In proceeding to edit a text, the future editor lays his 
foundations carefully. If the text has been already edited, 
he collects all the printed editions, and from the information 
given in them he makes a tentative list of manuscript 
authorities. The number of printed editions can be 
sensibly reduced by taking no account of those that are 
mere reprints of others. The editor’s aim in studying 
previous editions is, of course, primarily to find out as 
much as he can of the manuscript bases behind them, and 
secondarily, to collect such emendations of a faulty text 
as may have been suggested by their editors. It is a 
fallacy to suppose that everything good in any old edition 
of any book must have been transmitted to its successors. 
But when the editor has collected all he can from printed 
sources his duty has not ended. He must study the 
catalogues of libraries containing manuscripts. Lists of 
these libraries and their catalogues are to be found, so far 
as Greek manuscripts are concerned, in Gardthausen’s 
Sammlungen und Cataloge griechischer Handschriften 
(Leipzig, 1903), and, so far as Latin are concerned, in 
Weinberger’s Catalogus Catalogorum (Vienna, 1901, and 
later). In cases where the catalogues of libraries are 
unpublished, the editor must either visit the libraries them- 
selves or communicate with the librarians as to the presence 
of so-and-so text in their collections. When he has made 
his list of manuscripts as complete as possible, he ought 
to arrange them in chronological order, and, if possible, add 
the locality where each was written. When this has been 


112 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


done, the first step towards collation and classification has 
been achieved. It is then the editor’s duty to collate the 
MSS. in the order of their age, taking the oldest first. 
The reason for this procedure is that he may find a later 
one to be merely a copy of an older, and after some work 
on that later one he may be able to neglect it altogether. 
The external history of a MS. is most useful in confirming 
a theory of relationship between MSS. based on date and 
contents accurately ascertained. 


INDIVIDUAL MANUSCRIPTS 


We have seen in a general way what the purpose of 
textual criticism is. We now propose to consider inter 
alia some of the rules which may prove valuable in the 
restoration of corrupt texts. ‘Two kinds of errors are to 
be found in manuscripts—first, accidental ; second, inten- 
tional. The first kind are those due to defective copying, 
where the scribe has the will to copy exactly what is 
before him. ‘The second is found where the scribe, either 
judging correctly that what is before his eyes is wrong, 
corrects the mistake after a fashion of his own, in order 
to make some sense; or misunderstanding what is before 
him through defective knowledge of the language or want 
of common sense, alters the text before him to a form 
which in his opinion conveys the right sense. The first 
kind of error thus often leads to the second.) There is a 
well-known instance in Juvenal (Satire viii., line 148), where 
the correct text is undoubtedly 


ipse rotam adstringit sufflamine mulio consul 
(‘the consul, a muleteer for the nonce, himself with drag- 
chain binds the wheel’). 


This was miscopied by a scribe, who wrote the little-known 
word mulio as multo, thus producing 


ipse rotam adstringit sufflamine multo consul, 


a form not devoid of sense, but metrically wrong. Along 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 113 


comes a scribe who knows the laws of metre, and corrects 
this unmetrical line to 


ipse rotam adstringit multo sufflamine consul, 


the form in which this line appeared in all printed editions 
till about a quarter of a century ago. Here an accidental 
error is patched up by an intentional alteration, and this 
latter deceives many generations. A similar instance 
occurs in the New Testament (Luke xix. 37), Here the 
original text is 


περὶ πάντων ὧν εἶδον λέγοντες (so Syr. vet. only). 


The next step is that a marginal δυνάμεων is supplied by a 
scribe to explain the indefinite ὧν. This form gets into 
the text in B: but all other MSS. correct the resulting 
error in grammar by altering πάντων to πασῶν. 

The science of paleography has medicines to apply to 
the former disease, that of accidental errors in copying, 
but who shall cure the vagaries of the human mind, flounder- 
ing from error into error? ‘The remedies for accidental 
errors are various, according to the nature of these acci- 
dental errors. They may be classified as follows : 

(1) Wrong division of words.—The correct text of a passage 

in the Pseudo-Augustinian Quaestiones, CXIIII., § 6 (page 
305, line 22, of my edition) is: erubescunt enim palam inludi ; 
turpia enim quae illic uice legis aguntur....In all the MSS. 
we find tnluditur pia. An early editor struck out the 
-tur and ingeniously changed the pia to piacula. There 
is a well-known instance of wrong division in the MSS. 
of Seneca (Epistle 89, § 4) corrected by Madvig. MSS. 
(philosophia) ipso nomine fatetur. quidam et .. ., which 
ought to be ... fatetur quid amet (‘ Philosophy by its 
very name confesses what it loves’). So in English: 
‘Have you seen a bun dance on the table?’ etc. The 
New ‘Testament apparatus supplies some examples: 
in 1 Tim. iii. 16 some authorities take ὁμολογουμένως as 
ὁμολογοῦμεν ws, and in 2 Tim. ii. 17 some take γάγγραινα as 
γάγγρα iva, 

H 


114 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [σΗ. 


(2) Omission of syllables or words or lines.—This is a very 
common type of error. We have already had an instance 
of the omission of a line (page 86). Words or syllables 
are most apt to be omitted if they are identical with or 
closely resemble words or syllables next them. If the 
syllables be identical, and one is omitted, this error is 
known as haplography. If the omission be due to the 
syllable having the same beginning as that next it, the 
error is said to be due to homoeoarcton ; if to the possession 
of the same ending, it is called homoeoteleuton. A general 
term for the omission of a syllable, etc., from the point of 
view of the agent who omits, is parablepsia. 

(3) Repetition of syllables or words or lines.—Not so 
common, but still not infrequent, is the wrong repetition 
of a syllable, word, or line. This error is known as ditto- 
graphy. 

(4) Transpositions of syllables—Of these examples will 
be found in Housman’s Manilius, Book 1. pages lvii ff. 

(5) Marginal glosses getting into the text—Luke xix. 37 
(above) is an instance. This type of error is not nearly 
so frequent as was at one time supposed. It is an easy 
expedient in a difficult passage for an editor to suppose 
such an insertion. Certain manifestations of Dutch 
scholarship exercised on authors like Thucydides will occur 
to the classical scholar. An instance, however, of such a 
gloss may be taken from the Pseudo-Augustinian Quaes- 
tiones, X LI. init, where videtur hic errasse in ista sententia ; 
non est accipiendum quod dixit, a marginal note in one MS., 
becomes part of the text in a whole family of MSS. Another 
instance, from the New Testament itself, will be found in 
2 Tim iv. 19, where certain authorities add, from the 
Acta Pauli, the words, ‘ Lectra his wife and Simaea.’ A 
kindred error is that whereby an omission noticed after- 
wards by the scribe, and placed in the lower or upper 
margin, with marks to indicate where the insertion should 
be made, is misunderstood by a later copyist. ‘The words 
may thus be placed wrongly by him. There is a notable 
instance of this in the manuscript tradition of Lucan’s 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 115 


De Bello Ciwili, which serves as a means of classifying 
certain MSS. 


FAMILIES OF MANUSCRIPTS 


If the errors occurring in manuscripts are a barrier 
between us and the original text, they have a use all their 
own in the effort to attain that text. The old unscientific 
method of textual criticism was to construct the text 
from the consensus of the majority of witnesses. What 
nineteen out of twenty witnesses read must be right against 
that which is read by the twentieth. This erroneous 
method of criticism is corrected by the application of the 
principle of genealogy of manuscripts. Just as in the 
case of human beings we conclude relationship from the 
common possession of abnormalities, so do we in manu- 
scripts. Our witnesses are very numerous, and it is ob- 
viously necessary to reduce their number if we can. As 
each manuscript is a copy of some other manuscript, and 
so on back to the original autograph, it is obvious that if 
we possess the immediate original from which any MS. 
was copied, the copy ceases to have any value for our pur- 
pose, unless it happens that the scribe had two manuscripts 
in front of him instead of one, and occasionally ‘ corrected ’ 
the one by the other. Then the manuscript represents 
two strains. This is an exceptional case, however, and we 
must always begin by supposing that one MS. only was 
before the scribe, and that he is making an honest effort 
to copy it exactly. Community of error is then the sole 
ground of relationship, and the greater that community 
the closer the relationship. Sometimes it is possible to see 
an error working its way through a long line of manuscripts. 
The presence of this error proves that a common ancestor 
of all contained it. To take a case familiar to me. The 
Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CX XVII. of ‘ Am- 
brosiaster’ exists in eight old manuscripts, and one 
thirteenth-century manuscript, as well as some late MSS., 
which need not be considered here. Five of these old 

1 See Prof. W. B. Anderson in the Classical Review, xx. (1906), p. 857. 


116 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


manuscripts exhibit a very long passage of Quaest. OXV. 
transposed from its proper place to a position in Quaest. 
CXVIII. The error is easy to detect. Quaest. CXV. 
concerns astrology, while Quaest. CXVIII. is about Job. 
In Quaest. CXV. we come upon a grammatical impasse, 
and in Quaest. CX VIII., after some commendation of Job, 
we suddenly plunge into extraneous matter, concerned with 
astrology, but having nothing to do with Job. Itis obvious 
that all copies showing this transposition come from a 
common ancestor, in which a sheet or two had become 
accidentally transposed. The other three old MSS. are 
without this transposition, but, as the absence of the 
transposition is not an error, this argues no close relation- 
ship between them. But all the eight have an omission, 
which does not appear in the thirteenth-century MS. 
Therefore the eight are, after all, related, and all come 
from some very ancient copy from which a leaf or two had 
been cut out or lost. In the effort to restore the original 
text, this one thirteenth-century MS. may be right at times, 
against the consensus of the eight much older MSS., as it 
represents a different strain; and, having one error in 
common, the eight may have others also, derived from 
their ultimate original. Within the five, too, one can 
classify. It can be proved that one of the five is a copy 
of another, and also that another pair are sister MSS. 
derived from a lost original. And all this indisputable 
classification is made possible by a close study of errors.1 
This example has been chosen as an easily demonstrable 
case. Similar things happen in New Testament MSS. 
Whole classes of minuscules are constituted by those MSS. 
which exhibit the passage about the adulterous woman in 
certain positions. Similarly, one can classify authorities 
fer the conclusions of St. Mark. But we cannot prove that 
one MS. is a direct copy of another, unless we can account 
for every aberration in the case of the later MS. We must 
always first prove relationship, but it takes more trouble 


1 See my paper in Sitzwngsberichte of the Vienna Academy, cxlix. (1905), or 
my edition (Vienna, 1908), pp. xxviii ff. 


Ix. ] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 117 


to define it exactly, and we must postulate not infrequently 
the existence of missing links. 


In the case of the New Testament, too, intentional altera- 
tion, mainly in the interests of clearness, rarely of a 
special theology,! plays a distinct part. In the Gospels, 
too, harmonisation between one Gospel and another, 
due perhaps sometimes to use of a formal Diatessaron, 
oftener probably to the fact that we are all liable to recollect 
Gospel passages “diatessarically,’ is often found. Obviously 
those authorities are to be followed in any particular Gospel 
which gives a reading not found in another Gospel. Where 
MSS. of two Gospels exhibit both readings, we must decide 
which belongs to which by a study of the general methods 
of each evangelist. 

In deciding as to which of one or more readings is the 
correct one, the final judgment lies with the trained common- 
sense of the scholar. If it be replied that scholars differ, 
then the answer must be that for the untrained man the 
opinion held by most scholars, or by those whose judgment 
is most highly esteemed by the body of scholars themselves, 
is that which will be most safely followed. There can be 
little question that of all texts now in existence, that which 
commands the highest degree of assent among those best 
qualified to judge is that of Westcott and Hort. This is 
due not only to the almost infallible judgment of Hort in 
such matters, a scholar who also spared no pains to make 
an exhaustive examination of all the evidence in each case 
for himself, but is also due to the fact that two scholars 
threshed out the problems, and that in most cases they 
were able to come to an agreement, in spite of the fact that 
their investigations were independent. In this chapter, 
therefore, the principles of Westcott and Hort will be ex- 
pounded. In this no slight is intended to the work of 
Hermann von Soden, who has since suggested a view 
different in some important particulars. In Westcott and 
Hort’s case we have the result before us in their text, 


1 Bee Dr. Rendel Harris, Side-Lights on New Testament Research, 
pp. 29 ff. 


118 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


and in Van Soden’s the text is still awaited. Further, the 
abundance of Von Soden’s material, and the forbidding 
manner in which it is presented, increase the difficulty of 
presenting his views. These, however, will be found, put 
as briefly as I can put them, at the end of the chapter. 
The absence of an exposition of the views of scholars earlier 
than Westcott and Hort will readily be excused in a brief 
work, especially as Westcott and Hort gathered up in them- 
selves all that was most valuable in the work of their 
predecessors. The maxims which they enunciate on ques- 
tions of text are of such importance that they must be 
reproduced here 3 :— 


(a) Knowledge of documents should precede final judg- 
ment upon readings. 

(Ὁ) All trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is 
founded on the study of their history. 


APPLICATION TO NEw TESTAMENT TEXT 


An epitome of Westcott and Hort’s general view of the 
textual history of the New Testament may now follow. 

The Antiochian Fathers, Diodorus of Tarsus and his 
two pupils, St. John (Chrysostom) and Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, attest the existence of abundance of various 
readings already before the fifth century. The Greek 
manuscripts of normal character show us for the most 
part an Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of the middle 
and end of the fourth century, after which date few varia- 
tions of any importance appear to have been made. 

(1) ‘Syrian’ readings are derived from ‘ Western’ 
readings, and from other older readings. This appears 
from passages where mixed readings occur 3 :— 


Mark ix. 3: 
(a) οἷα γναφεὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς od δύναται οὕτως λευκᾶναι, 
x Β, 1 and its allies, a few other miniscule MSS., 


1 Introduction, pp. 31, 40. 

2 T have selected one example myself, the others I have borrowed from 
Westcott and Hort, pp. 95-104; but I have given the authorities for each 
reading with an accuracy impossible in 1881. 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 119 


Old-Latin MSS. d and &, the Sahidic, Armenian, and 
Ethiopic versions. 

(Ὁ) ὡς χιών, X (a minor Greek uncial), a and nm repre- 
senting the oldest known European type of Old- 
Latin, and the Old-Syriac (according to the Sinaitic 
palimpsest). 

(c) ws χιὼν οἷα [γναφεὺς] ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς οὐ δύναται οὕτως 
λευκᾶναι, D and the ruck of Greek MSS., the 
majority of Old-Latin MSS. and the Vulgate, the 
Peshitta, Syriac, and the Bohairic version (pos- 
sibly also the Diatessaron). I bracket γναφεύς 
because it is omitted in D, ὃ of the Old-Latin, and 
the Peshitta. 


The (a) reading can be traced as far back as the middle 
of the third century by its presence in ὦ, which, as we have 
seen, represents the Cyprianic Bible ; (b) can hardly be later 
in Latin than the same date, and if Burkitt’s view of the 
Old-Syriac is right, must be half a century older in Syrian 
Antioch ; (c) there is no ground for regarding as earlier than 
the fourth century. We shall, therefore, naturally regard 
(c) as the later reading, having been made up by a con- 
flation of the two earlier readings. To which of the latter 
we ought to give the preference is not now the question, but 
(a), as having old Eastern and Western attestation com- 
bined, is more likely to.be right. The ‘ fuller’ was regarded 
as vulgar, and so (b) adopts the banal comparison with 
snow. 


Mark ix. 38 : 

(a) καὶ ἐκωλύομεν (or ἐκωλύσαμεν) αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει 
(or ἀκολουθεῖ) ἡμῖν (or μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν), καὶ ΒΟΊ, ΔΨ, four 
minuscules, the Old-Latin MS. f, the Old, Peshitta 
and Palestinian Syriacs, the Sahidic and Bohairic 
versions, some MSS. of the Armenian, the 
Ethiopic. 

(Ὁ) ὃς οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν (or μεθ’ ἡμῶν) καὶ ἐκωλύομεν 
(or ἐκωλύσαμεν) αὐτόν, Ὁ Χ, 1 and its family, 
13 and its family, 28,700 and a few other min- 


120 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cH. 


uscules, all the Old-Latin MSS. but one, as well 
as the Vulgate, the margin of the Harclean Syriac, 
some MSS. of the Armenian. 

(c) ὃς οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν καὶ ἐκωλύσαμεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐκ 
ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν, the great mass of Greek MSS., the 
Harclean Syriac and the Gothic versions. 


The reading (c) cannot be traced earlier than the second 
half of the fourth century, the date of the Gothic version, 
but the attestation of (a) is both old and wide. The 
reading (6) is also old and predominantly Western in the 
geographical sense. It can hardly be doubted that both 
(a) and (6) are at least as old as the second century, and it 
seems plain that (c) is a conflation of (a) and (0), on the 
usual principle that nothing be lost. 


Luke xxiv. 53: 

(a) εὐλογοῦντες, καὶ B, first hand of C, L, the Old and 
Palestinian Syriacs, the Sahidic and _ Bohairic 
versions. 

(b) αἰνοῦντες, D, the Old-Latin version, Augustine. 

(c) αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, A, second hand of C, great 
mass of Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, 
the Peshitta and Harclean Syriacs, the Armenian, 
and practically the Ethiopic version. 


None of the evidence for (c) can be dated earlier than 
the fourth century (the date of the Latin Vulgate), but 
(a) and (Ὁ) are both old. It is quite clear that (c) is a 
conflation of (a) and (6), or rather of (Ὁ) and (a), for here, 
just as above, it appears that the Syrian-Antiochian text 
was made with the Western text for base, as we should 
expect, the variants of Alexandrian MSS. being added 
from a copy at the reviser’s side. 

Another example may be added here, though it is too 
complicated to be merely a simple illustration of the 
truth we are seeking to establish. 


1 The Western text was in prevalent use in Syria down to about the middle 
of the fourth century. 


1x.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 121 


John vi. 69: 

(a) ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, κα B Ο Ὁ L, the Sahidic version, 
and the writers Nonnus and Cosmas, both Alex- 
andrians, of the fifth and sixth centuries re- 
spectively. 

(Ὁ) ὁ χριστὸς ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, certain MSS. of the 
Sahidic version, and most of the Bohairic. 

(c) ὁ χριστός, Tertullian. 

(d) ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃ of the Old-Latin, and the Curetonian 
MS. of the Old-Syriac. 

(6) ὁ χριστὸς ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 and its group, 33,565, 
e of the Old-Latin and other MSS., as well as 
the Vulgate, the Sinaitic palimpsest of the Old- 
Syriac, certain manuscripts of the Bohairic version, 
and Cyril of Alexandria (as edited). 

(ἢ ὁ vids τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, 17, and Cyprian in two 
quotations of the verse which he makes. 

(9) ὁ χριστὸς ὃ vids τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος, N and the ruck 
of the Greek MSS., ff, and q, two later Old-Latin 
European MSS., the Peshitta and Harclean Syriac, 
the Gothic, ete., also Basil, Chrysostom, and 
Victorinus Afer in two quotations made by him.} 


At first sight the multiplicity of the evidence is bewilder- 
ing here, but several considerations will help to clear the 
air. One is the influence of parallelism. This passage 
was certain to be confused with the confession of Peter. 
If we can ascertain the precise text of that, it will help to 
eliminate interpolation. In the Matthaean form it is 
identical with (g), which at once disposes of (g)’s claim to 
be regarded as the correct text in John. A second maxim 
which may help us to decide, is the rule that a shorter 
reading is more likely to be right than a longer; by this 
canon (a), (c), and (d) would have the best claim to be 
considered original. The third is the old maxim of Bengel, 
proclivt lectiont praestat ardua. By this maxim (a) easily 
carries off the victory; (g) is the Syrian-Antiochian 


1 Compare also Mark i. 2; viii. 26. 


122 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


reading, as we cannot date its attestation earlier than the 
fourth century. 

(2) The writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers show that 
Syrian-Antiochian readings are later than Western and 
other older readings and Alexandrian readings. ‘Traces 
of a Syrian-Antiochian text cannot be found before the 
middle of the third century, yet Western and other readings 
are found everywhere. 

It is possible that good critical texts might push the 
evidence for Syrian-Antiochian readings a good deal later 
than the middle of the third century. The texts of the 
Greek Fathers are so badly preserved that it is highly 
probable that many, if not all, Syrian-Antiochian readings 
found in modern texts of the Fathers are due to the scribes, 
who must have been familiar with the ecclesiastical text 
above all others, in most cases perhaps exclusively so. 
In illustration of the truth of this (2) principle, a critical 
study of the quotations in Greek Fathers down to and 
including Origen, reveals no certain instances of Syrian- 
Antiochian readings. We have seen, for instance, that 
Marcion, Justin, Tatian, Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus 
used ‘ Western’ texts. Origen is also generally on the 
same side, but shows occasional knowledge of what Westcott 
and Hort call the Neutral text. A good example is 
διασάφησον with κα B (Matth. xiii. 36), where all other 
Greek authorities have φράσον. Even later, in Methodius 
and Eusebius, the Western text still rules. 

(3) The character of the Syrian-Antiochian readings 
themselves shows that they are later than Western, Alex- 
andrian, and other readings. 

This has been shown by our study of various passages 
above. The author or authors of the Syrian revision had 
before them, at least, three types of text—a Western, a 
‘Neutral,’ and an Alexandrian. They made their revision 
out of these three, with the Western text, as the present 
writer thinks, for their usual base.1 ‘ Where they found 
variation, they followed different procedures in different 


1 See above, p. 120. 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 123 


places. Sometimes they transcribed unchanged the read- 
ing of one of the earlier texts, now of this, now of that. 
Sometimes they in like manner adopted exclusively one 
of the readings, but modified its form. Sometimes they 
combined the readings of more than one text in various 
ways, pruning or modifying them if necessary. Lastly, 
they introduced many changes of their own where, so far 
as appears, there was no previous variation.’ } 

From all this it results that readings clearly Syrian- 
Antiochian are to be rejected, and that readings in which 
pre-Syrian texts agree among themselves are to be accepted 
as original. Where they are in disagreement it is more 
difficult to decide what is the original text. The Western 
text is on the whole distinguished by additions not required 
by the sense, and by a paraphrastic tendency (if, of course, 
we regard the non-Western as nearer the original). The 
tendency of these alterations is to make the text simpler 
to understand. Another tendency of the Western text is 
to harmonise parallel passages, especially in the Gospels. 
So much is this a characteristic of D, the leading Greek 
representative of the Western text in the Gospels, that 
Vogels has argued that the text is powerfully influenced 
by the Diatessaron.? This fact in itself is enough to prove 
that the Western text as we have it cannot be the original 
apostolic text. Nor is the Western text itself a unity. 
There are distinct signs of an Eastern branch represented 
especially by the Old-Syriac, in addition to the Western 
branch represented by D, the Diatessaron, and the European 
Old-Latin versions. But of course these two groups 
frequently agree. The ‘ Western > texts may be described 
as due to increasing free handling of the apostolic originals. 
Sometimes one branch agrees with the ‘ Neutral ’ authori- 
ties, while the other branch is specifically "ἡ Western’ in 
character. They merit the utmost attention, because they 
are the oldest attested, but careful study is required to 
detach from them the gradual accretions of a century or 


1 W. H., Introd., pp. 116 f. 
2 Texte und Untersuchungen, Dritte Serie, Bd. vi. (1910). 


124 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT _ [cH, 


more. Evidence for another type of text in the ante- 
Nicene period comes almost exclusively from Alexandria, 
from Clement and Origen particularly. The Alexandrian 
Church was isolated from the rest of Christendom during 
the first century and a half or so of its existence. There 
was also there an old tradition of scholarly pursuits and 
accuracy, which would conduce to the careful preservation 
of literary texts. There, too, the Septuagint, the Bible of 
the early Christians, had taken its rise. What more 
natural than that the new sacred books should be carefully 
copied there? The universal diffusion of the Western 
text can be best explained by the view that it circulated 
from Rome, the capital, and the centre of all things. There 
is ample evidence that Rome used the Western text. But 
Egypt was practically a closed country to the rest of the 
Empire, the centre of the corn supply, a special preserve 
of the Empire, not to be visited by any one save with the 
emperor’s express permission. There, then, a text would 
be preserved in more primitive purity than elsewhere. 
The Western documents themselves, however, show that 
at one time the Neutral text must have been more widely 
spread. 

The name ‘ Alexandrian’ is applied by Westcott and 
Hort to certain varieties in pre-Syrian non-Western texts. 
These variations are found in quotations of Origen and 
Cyril of Alexandria, as well as in the two leading Egyptian 
versions, especially the Bohairic. These variations would 
appear to have had their origin in Alexandria, and to belong 
to a partially degenerate form of pre-Syrian non-Western 
text. ‘The changes are more those of language than of 
matter, and aim at greater correctness of phrase. 

The Syrian-Antiochian revision, which may have been 
due to Lucian of Antioch, martyred in 312, is distinguished 
by fulness and smoothness. As Constantinople was 
ecclesiastically the child of Antioch, this text became the 
current ecclesiastical text, reproduced by the great mass 
of the cursives. A certain proportion of cursives exhibit 
a text degenerate even from this, but others preserve 


1x. ] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 125 


precious fragments here and there of really old texts, now 
no longer represented by uncials. 

After expounding this history of the text in the early 
centuries, Westcott and Hort proceed to enumerate the 
surviving documents in which the various types are pre- 
served in a greater or less degree of purity. 


Pre-Syrian of no family 


B in Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, in Paul has here 
and there Western readings. 

x to a great extent, but there are very many Western 
readings, especially in John, and very many Alexandrian 
readings. 

Less matter, but of great value, is preserved in the 
Gospels by L and some other uncials. In the other parts 
of the New Testament C and A have preserved much, in 
Acts 61, and in Paul H and M. Some MSS. have slighter 
traces. 

Western 


D (Gospels and Acts), D (Paul), G (Paul) (and its closely 
related F) are alone, with the chief Old-Latin MSS. and 
Fathers, the Old-Syriac version, and the Greek (non- 
Alexandrian) Ante-Nicene Fathers, pure, but many 
Western readings are found in many MSS. : 


Gospels: 8 X I'l & 13 & 22 28 81 (especially) 157 
Latin and Syriac Vulgate (or any Syrian text), 
Sahidic, Armenian, Gothic and Ethiopic versions. 

Acts: x E 137 180, etc., Latin and Syriac Vulgate, 
Harclean Syriac (especially), Sahidic, Armenian, 
Ethiopic versions. Quotations in Irenaeus. 

Paul: x» B 31 37 137, Latin Vulgate, Syriac versions, 
Sahidic, Armenian, Gothic (especially), Ethiopic. 


Alexandrian 


Hardly a pure witness remains, but many traces are 
found in a number of MSS. of the better class, especially 


126 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


in Acts and Catholic Epistles; also in the Sahidic and 
Bohairic versions, especially the latter; further, in the 
Armenian, the Latin Vulgate (or another revised Latin 
text), the Alexandrian Fathers. 

Gospels: » ΟἹ, X 33, also 157. 

Acts: καὶ ACE, ete. 

Catholic Epistles: καὶ AC P, ete. 

Paul: x» ACP, etc. 


Syrian 


Witnesses almost pure are the majority of minuscules, as 
well as the later uncials. In the old,! Peshitta, and 
Harclean Syriac versions the Syrian text is especially 
present, but all the versions from the fourth century 
onwards are more or less Syrian in text, among which 
Latin MSS. like f and q and the Gothic version are 
prominent. 


Gospels: The majority of MSS. (A CN X K MTA mix 
ancient matter sparingly with Syrian). 

Acts: The majority of MSS. 

Catholic Epistles: The majority of MSS. (P to a great 
extent). 

Paul: The majority of MSS. (P to a great extent). 


The older texts of the Apocalypse they could not dis- 
tinguish with sufficient clearness. 

Such in brief is the general scheme of Westcott and 
Hort’s classification of the authorities for the text of the 
New Testament. The thirty years which have elapsed 
since the publication of their edition have been character- 
ised rather by an increase in the number of available 
documents and a more accurate knowledge of those then 
available than by any real advance in our knowledge of 
the history of the text. The effect of the thirty years’ 
work has been rather to fill in the details of the picture 
they sketched than to obliterate certain parts and sketch 


1 By this of course is meant, in the mouths of Westcott and Hort, the type 
of text offered by the Curetonian Syriac MS. 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 127 


them anew. The advance in knowledge of documents has 
been triple. Three columns, as it were, have been simul- 
taneously advancing on the citadel. Greek MSS., versions 
(with their manuscripts), and patristic quotations (with 
the manuscripts containing them) are all more accurately 
‘known. I have tried in a recent paper to outline the 
principal elements in this advance so far as the Gospels 
are concerned.! It is there, of course, that the main 
interest of the present age lies. But progress has been 
made in other parts of the New Testament also, notably 
in Acts and in the Apocalypse. 

The most important document which has accrued during 
the period is unquestionably the Sinaitic Syriac Palimpsest, 
discovered in 1892. As representing for the most part an 
earlier form of the Old-Syriac version than the Curetonian 
MS., and supplying many of its defects, it shed a flood of 
light on the early history of the ‘ Western’ text, and has 
strengthened the authority for many readings. Hardly 
second in importance is the Freer Greek MS. of the Gospels 
expected to be. Dated variously by experts, it can hardly be 
earlier than the fourth century or later than the sixth, and it 
is already known that it contains certain unique or almost 
unique features. Next in interest comes, perhaps, our in- 
creased knowledge of the purple MSS. of the Gospels, allied 
to one another textually as well as artistically. In the 
Epistles of Paul we have to chronicle the increased knowledge 
of MS. H, with its interesting bearing on the early history 
of the text. Among cursives, Mr. Hoskier’s collation of 
No. 700 (604) in the British Museum deserves mention, as 
supplying a very interesting text, with many early elements. 
Lake’s study of the 1 group, and the light he and others 
have shed on the 13 or Ferrar group, have shown in practical 
working that study of families of minuscules which has 
been carried so far later by Hermann von Soden and his 
collaborators.2, B. Weiss and W. Bousset have also made 


1 Progress in the Textual Criticism of the Gospels since Westcott and Hort, 
in Mansfield College Essays (London, 1909), pp. 349-64, 

2 See also E. A. Hutton’s Atlas of Textual Criticism (Cambridge, 1911), 
pp. 49 ff., for an interesting analysis of Ferrar readings. 


128 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


laudable attempts to classify MSS. in the Epistles and 
Apocalypse respectively. 

The study of the versions has also been signally pro- 
moted. The University of Oxford, in Old-Latin Biblical 
Texts and the Vulgate of Bishop Wordsworth and Professor 
White, has done more than any other university in the 
world to promote increased knowledge of the Latin docu- 
ments, though other scholars like Berger, Heer, and Hoskier 
deserve mention for their editions or collations of Latin 
MSS. In the department of Syriac, the Old-Syriac palimp- 
sest, edited both by Burkitt and Mrs. Lewis, deserves the 
foremost place, but the edition of the Peshitta Gospels 
by Pusey and Gwilliam must not be overlooked. Dr. 
Gwynn’s excellent editions of the Philoxenian Syriac in the 
minor Catholic Epistles and in the Apocalypse are Ireland’s 
great contribution to the subject. The Harclean revision 
for part of Hebrews has been recovered and edited by 
Bensly. Editions of several fresh manuscripts of the 
Palestinian Syriac Lectionary are to the credit of Harris, 
Mrs. Lewis, and others. Rev. G. W. Horner has edited 
‘the Sahidic version of the Gospels in the most masterly 
fashion, and has given us a no less valuable edition of the 
Bohairic version of the entire New Testament. The 
Armenian versions of the Apocalypse have been first made 
readily accessible to all by Dr. F. C. Conybeare. To the 
same scholar also is due further knowledge of the Georgian 
version ; nor have the Arabic versions been neglected. It 
is pardonable if we should boast in such services to the 
sacred text, unmatched in any other country. 

The period has also been marked by the publication of 
many better editions of patristic works. Nothing in the 
work of Westcott and Hort is perhaps more praiseworthy 
than the patience and wisdom which they employed in 
dealing with the early and bad editions of Fathers, which 
in so many cases were all they had at their disposal. ‘The 
Berlin series of Greek Fathers, started in 1897, is a noble 
attempt to represent, often on the basis of poorly preserved 
material, the authentic texts of many patristic writings. 


re) PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 129 


For the period later than Nicaea we have received such 
editions as Mr. E. O. Winstedt’s Cosmas Indicopleustes, 
most interesting for the history of the New Testament 
text. In Latin the progress has been more remarkable, 
not because greater scholars have worked at the Latin 
patristic writings, but because the evidence is in most 
cases so much better preserved. There exists in the 
libraries of Europe probably enough material to write an 
illuminating history of the Latin Bible from about 300 or 
350 onwards to modern times. The Vienna Corpus of 
Latin ecclesiastical writers endeavours to supply critical 
texts of all writings down to about 600. Outside this 
scheme we have such valuable works as Swete’s T'heodore 
of Mopsuestia on the Epistles of Paul, Burkitt’s Rules of 
Tyconius, and Burn’s Niceta of Remesiana, each provided 
with information on the biblical text employed by the 
author. Oriental writers, too, are receiving attention in 
the Patrologia Orientalis, and other works, to which such 
work as the Mechitarist’s edition of St. Ephraim on the 
Kpistles of Paul, despite its defects, deserves to be added. 
The study of the materials has made a considerable 
advance also. No scholar has done more for our com- 
prehension of the whole of the evidence than Professor 
F. C. Burkitt, whose services to the study of the Latin 
and Syriac versions are equally great. By his convincing 
dating of the Peshitta in Rabbula’s period (411-35), he has 
solved the most desperate problem which the defenders of 
the Neutral text had to face. His strong championship of 
the view that by tala Augustine in the famous passage 
meant no more than the then new Hieronymian work, the 
Vulgate, has paved the way for a simpler classification of 
Old-Latin texts. The readers of the present work would 
do well to ponder every word he writes on the subject of 
New Testament textual criticism, for no authority of our 
time surpasses him in learning and judgment. Another 
feature of our period has been the way in which study of 
the Synoptic problem and that of the textual criticism of the 
Gospels have played into one another’s hands. Of this 
I 


130 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


perhaps the most interesting illustration is to be found in 
Mr. C. H. Turner’s articles... No more historically impor- 
tant study of Latin material has appeared than Dr. 
Sanday’s analysis of the k-Cyprianic text of the Gospels.? 
The numerous monographs of Dr. Rendel Harris, too, in 
which with curious learning and bright flashes of genius 
he has illuminated many an obscure corner of our field, 
are one of the most delightful features of the period. 
Many other interesting pieces of work must be passed 
over in silence to make way for the epoch-making intro- 
duction of Hermann von Soden. 

Between the years 1902 and 1910 Von Soden, with the 
aid of numerous collaborators, has published over two 
thousand large pages of introductory matter, most of it in 
small type, expounding his view of the history of the text. 
The text itself is still unpublished. Some account of this 
first volume must here be given, and I am indebted to 
the review and appendix of Professor Lake for help in 
doing so.? 

In this volume he has discussed three topics :— 

(1) The notation and enumeration of MSS. 

(2) The classification of MSS. into groups according to 
their textual characteristics. 

(3) The reconstruction of the history of the text. 


(1) The New Notation.—The MSS. of the earliest period 
never contained the whole New Testament. The New 
Testament was commonly in four volumes: (1) the four- 
fold Gospel, (2) Acts and Catholic Epistles, (3) Paul, 
(4) Apocalypse. The old notation dealt with each of these 
volumes as a separate entity, and if a particular Greek 
MS. contained more than one of these four sections, it 
could bear a different number (or letter) in the list of MSS. 

1 Three articles in vol. x. (1908-9) of the Journal of Theological Studies, 
especially pp. 174 ff. 

2 Old-Latin Biblical Texts, ii. (Oxford, 1886). See also Hans von Soden, 
Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians (Leipzig, 1909). 

3 Review of Theology and Philosophy, Oct. and Nov. 1908, separately pub- 
lished also; Lake, J'ext of N. T., 4th ed, (Dec. 1908). Cf. also Nestle, 


Kinfiihrung* (March 1909), 197 ff., and Valentine Richards, Cambridge 
Biblical Essays (Oct. 1909), 585 ff. 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 131 


of each of the sections. Thus a Greek manuscript which 
contained the whole New Testament had a different 
number attached to it in each of the four classes, though 
it remained the same complete MS. The letters and 
numbers, as we have seen, became attached to MSS. from 
the time of Wettstein (1761-2), and the capital letters of 
the alphabet were employed to designate uncial MSS. in 
the order in which they became known to editors of the 
New Testament, in the same way as the numbers were 
employed to indicate the minuscule MSS. Thus the 
accident that Codex Alexandrinus was known before any 
other uncial led to the use of A to indicate it; and simi- 
larly the number 1 was used to indicate a Basle MS., 
because it was used by Erasmus, the editor of the first 
published edition. This system was continued by later 
editors such as Scholz, who simply added the new manu- 
scripts they collated to the previous existing list, attaching 
to them the succeeding numbers. Von Soden’s system 
ignores the artificial distinction between uncials and 
minuscules, renumbers all the manuscripts, and _ en- 
deavours to show at once by the symbol and number, to 
those who have grasped his system, the contents and date 
of the manuscript concerned. Thus a manuscript which 
contains the whole New Testament (with or without the 
Apocalypse) is at once known as such by the symbol ὃ 
(ΞΞ διαθήκη) preceding the new number, and one contain- 
ing the Gospel only by ε (-- εὐαγγέλιον) so prefixed; so 
with zw (πράξεις) for Acts and Catholic Epistles (with 
or without the Apocalypse), and a (ἀπόστολος) for Paul. 
The number attached contains in it one figure which 
suggests the century to which the MS. belongs. ‘6é- and 
a-MSS., up to the end of the ninth century, are numbered 
1 to 49; those of the tenth century 50 to 99; for the 
following centuries numbers of three ciphers are taken, 
and the cipher in the hundreds’ place indicates the century : 
thus, 121 means a MS. of the eleventh century, 221 of the 
twelfth, 321 of the thirteenth, and so on.’! Further parti- 
1 Lake, Text of the New Testament, 4th ed. (1908), p. 100, 


132 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


culars of this ingenious system need hardly be given here, 
especially as the use of it is likely to be confined to the in- 
ventor’s own edition. However important it may be for 
the professional scholar to be able to tell questions of 
date and contents at a glance, the main practical object 
of the use of symbols indicating manuscripts is the 
resulting brevity of a critical apparatus. An apparatus 
employing the full Von Soden symbols would be unduly 
cumbrous. The revised system of Gregory, which retains 
all that is good and familiar in the old system, while it 
removes such anomalies as it had, is much better, and the 
vast majority of experts have expressly declared their 
preference for 10.1 

(2) The Classification of MSS.—Von Soden classifies 
MSS. of the Gospels in groups, according to their general 
textual character, the form of the text of the pericope 
adulterae (which he calls μ [=potyadés}), and the chapter 
divisions, etc., attached to them. He distinguishes seven 
different recensions of μ, and tries to classify MSS. contain- 
ing it on the basis of these different recensions. It is 
obvious, of course, that a copyist might derive » from a 
different MS. from that which he used in making a copy 
of the rest of the Gospels. It is also obvious that chapter 
divisions might be used for a different form of text from 
that for which they were originally made. Copies of the 
Vulgate, for instance, often contain a system of chapter 
divisions and headings clearly made for an Old-Latin 
MS. Still Von Soden’s method is good as far as it goes. 

Using these criteria, he divides MSS. of the Gospels 
into three great groups, which he calls K, H, 1, of which 
KX and I may be divided into several smaller groups. 

The Καὶ (-- κοινή) Text.—This he divides into five classes, 
of which K! is the oldest and best form, though it can in 
a few cases be corrected by the other families, which have 
sometimes preserved the original K text. Καὶ! omitted 
» altogether, or marked it with asterisks to indicate its 
doubtful origin. From all these classes the original K text 


1 The first apparatus in which it has been used is my own. 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 133 


is reconstructed. Its oldest MS. is eighth-century Q (« 61), 
but its influence can be traced as far back as A (ὃ 4) and 
C (6 3), that is fifth century, and even in B (8!) x (6?) (fourth 
century). K was used also by Chrysostom, and a mixture 
of J and K was used by the Cappadocian Fathers, whose 
Gospel text is preserved in the purple MSS., already re- 
ferred to. Καὶ was produced at Antioch by Lucian (f 312). 
This K text is practically the Syrian-Antiochian text of 
Westcott and Hort. 

The H (=‘Hovyuos) Text.—This text is found in eleven 
MSS. of varying degrees of purity, By ΟΨ 33 Z L A 892 
1241 579, and a few fragments, some very early and 
on papyrus. There is no very intimate connexion 
between any two of these MSS. except between the first 
and second, which were both produced in Egypt, and repre- 
sent a common original, despite their numerous divergences. 
Even this common original has been contaminated by the 
Egyptian versions, and sometimes by the K and I texts, 
and by Origen, though not to any great extent. B is the 
better of the two, as αὶ has been corrupted in various 
ways. Von Soden refrains from subdividing the MSS. 
of this recension into families. It is more difficult to 
construct the original text of H than of K : there are many 
doubtful passages. The origin of the H text is unques- 
tionably Egyptian, as it was used by the translators of 
the Egyptian versions, and by all the Egyptian writers 
after the end of the third century, but not by Clement or 
Origen. It is probably the recension made by Hesychius, 
of which Jerome makes mention. It represents Westcott 
and Hort’s Neutral and Alexandrian texts. It is here that 
one of the main divergences between the two editors 
is to be found, and the question whether the two texts 
ought after all to be separated will have to be thoroughly 
threshed out. 

The 7 (=‘IepoodAvpa) Text.—This text roughly corres- 
ponds to Westcott and Hort’s Western text, but it depends 
entirely on Greek MSS. Von Soden practically ignores the 
Old-Latin and Old-Syriac versions at this point, but his 


134 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


position is that there was a text-recension, which he calls 
I, made at a time later than the great versions—in fact, 
early in the fourth century. This text is really a recension 
of what Westcott and Hort understand by the Western 
text. It is found nowhere in a pure form, and Von Soden 
has been forced to identify in all eleven sub-groups of 
MSS., as well as to call attention to a number of isolated 
MSS. which cannot be fitted into any group. Among the 
groups are the 1-118-131-209 group previously mentioned, 
and the so-called Ferrar group, now extended to ten, to 
which he applies the symbol J. Most, if not all, of the 
Ferrar group were written in South Italy, not earlier than 
the twelfth century. This group is a good witness to the 
I text, though somewhat corrupted. Another group he 
calls II, which contains four purple MSS. of the sixth cen- 
tury (see above on the K text). They represent a mixture 
of J with K!, and probably K*. The 7 text is best preserved 
in DO (=«-050) 28, 372, 565, 700 and a few others, but D is 
largely corrupted by influences from the Latin and Syriac 
(perhaps also Sahidic) versions. After eliminating corrup- 
tions the J text can be reconstructed. It seems to have 
been used by Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem. 
It is the recension made by Origen, and _ published 
by Pamphilus and Eusebius in Palestine. 

Von Soden then proceeds to discuss the relative import- 
ance of J, H, and K, and to elaborate a theory to account 
for their existence. Out of the three recensions, when 
restored to their primitive purity, he would reconstruct 
the J-H-K text, which he considers to represent the original 
text of the Gospels. These three recensions agree in the 
main, and it is only in Mark that the differences are at all 
striking. In deciding which of two or more competing 
readings is correct, the chief criterion is the absence of 
harmonisation with a parallel passage in another Gospel. 
Of the three recensions K diverges most from J-H-K, and 
I least. The text used by Origen is earlier than all these 
recensions, but we possess no manuscript giving it in full. 
From the readings surviving in his commentaries Von 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 135 


Soden infers that it was the J-H-K text which he used, 
but he did not construct it, and often disagrees with it. 
Origen is, in fact, an equal authority with J-H-K in textual 
criticism. 

He then examines in succession all the texts, versions, 
and citations which seem to be older than, or independent 
of, these three recensions, and notes their differences from 
these recensions. These differences he attributes to the 
influence of Tatian’s Diatessaron. But Tatian himself 
made his mosaic out of the J-H-K text, with variations 
which are not really variations. Further back than this 
he cannot go. The real weakness of this hypothesis is 
double. First, we have not more than fragments of the 
original Diatessaron, and these come to us through the 
double medium of Syriac and Armenian. The hypothesis is 
thus very hard to test. Second, there is no evidence that 
the Diatessaron had any real vogue except in the region 
of Syrian Antioch and in the Assyrian Church, and, this 
being the case, the rdle attributed to it is rather a serious 
one. Still it may have exercised some influence, though 
the view is now impossible of verification. The theory of 
various forms of Western text, backed up by careless 
citation and loose harmonisation in early versions and 
writers, would perhaps meet the requirements of the case 
even better. 

Thus far we have been concerned with the Gospels only, 
but substantially the same theory is applied to explain the 
characteristics of the documentary authorities for the text 
of the rest of the New Testament. In these parts, of course, 
there is no Diatessaron to explain divergences in patristic 
quotation. In the Book of Acts also there are J, ἢ, and 
K recensions. Of these three the H text undoubtedly 
stands relatively nearer to the original text than do the 
others. Of the authorities for the H text B and » are 
the best, but neither is very good. Most of the authorities 
for this recension are contaminated with the 7 and Καὶ 
branches. The H type is found in the Egyptian writers 
Athanasius, Didymus, and Cyril of Alexandria, as well as 


136 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


in the Bohairic and Sahidic versions. The J recension is 
best preserved in MSS. D and E. It can also be traced in 
Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Epiphanius, though their 
citations are few. Von Soden is far from blind to the 
difficulties of his theory as applied to the text of Acts, and 
indeed the sections in which he deals with this part of his 
subject are among the very best of his whole treatment.} 
It is impossible, however, to epitomise them in the space 
at our disposal. 

The Book of Acts was from an early date bound up with 
the Catholic Epistles, and manuscripts which contain both 
always display an uniform type of text. In other words, 
we do not find one type of text of Acts in conjunction now 
with one type in the Catholic Epistles, and now with 
another. Here again, therefore, Von Soden finds his 
three recensions J, H, and K. Yet, of course, prior to 
the union of Acts and Catholic Epistles, each of the eight 
items must have had some separate history, with the 
possible exception of Second and Third John. If proof 
of this were necessary, it would be found in the insecure 
canonical position of all in the list except Acts, First Peter, 
and First John. 

Further, the manuscripts of the Epistles of St. Paul divide 
themselves into three classes representing respectively the 
I, H, and K recensions. Each of these had the Pastoral 
Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews as integral parts 
of its collection of Pauline Epistles. The total number of 
variants is relatively much smaller than in any other 
section of the New Testament, or, in other words, the 
manuscript tradition was more uniform. Athanasius and 
Cyril of Alexandria, as well as the Sahidic and Bohairic 
versions, use the H type, Eusebius and Cyril of Jerusalem 
use the J type, Theodoret and (in general) Chrysostom, as 
well as the Peshitta, use the K type. The Harclean Syriac 
follows also for the most part the K type, but not so accu- 
rately as does the Peshitta. If any of the two recensions 
share a reading against the third, that reading was more 

1 §§ 383-448 (pp. 1653-1840). 


Ix.] PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM 137 


widespread in the third century, and must therefore repre- 
sent the J-H-K text behind the three recensions. The 
readings given by the third against the two others, especially 
if that third be either J or K, are for the most part due to 
harmonisation with parallel passages. Von Soden admits 
that in writers earlier than these recensions readings occur 
different from I-H-K, which have claims to be regarded 
as genuine. He remarks on the uniformity of the Greek 
text behind all our Latin authorities. It is probable that 
a large part of what is individual in K, or in the European 
Latin, or in both together, is due to Marcion’s text. 

In the Apocalypse, also, there are three types of text. 
The H and K recensions can be clearly distinguished. The 
H recension is supported by the Bohairic version. The 
oldest MS. of the K recension is of the eighth century ; 3 
hence it is not impossible that that recension was of very 
late origin. The third recension is more closely related to 
H than it is to K. It is found in a pure state only in the 
commentary of Andreas of Cappadocia (saec. vi.), and it 
is possible that Andreas was himself the author of it. 
Harmonisation of parallel passages is its leading character- 
istic. It is frequently a matter of great difficulty to decide 
on the right reading of the Apocalypse text. The Latin 
versions and the Philoxenian Syriac have the same Greek 
text behind them as is to be found behind the three Greek 
recensions ; the same is true of the citations in Hippolytus 
and Origen. 

No account, least of all a brief one like the present, 
could do anything like justice to the comprehensiveness 
of Von Soden’s investigations, but we must leave them for 
the present. 

1 8 508 ff. (pp. 1998 ff. 

2 It is strange that the Victorinus Afer and Ambrosiaster texts should be 
absolutely ignored on p. 2012. 


3 a 1070 (Tisch. B. Greg. 046), Rome Vat. Gr. 2066. On page 245 Von 
Soden dates it tenth century, on page 2042 he dates it eighth ! 


138 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cH. 


CHAPTER X 
THE FUTURE OUTLOOK 


It appears to the present writer that a great advance upon 
the text of Westcott and Hort in the direction of the 
original autographs is highly improbable, at least in our 
generation. If they have not said the last word, they 
have at least laid foundations which make it comparatively 
simple to fit later discoveries into their scheme. The 
discovery of further materials will no doubt sometimes 
incline the balance towards the reading which, on deliberate 
inspection of the evidence available to them, Westcott and 
Hort rejected, or put into the margin. The support for 
some of these rejected readings has materially increased 
with the progress of discovery. For instance, the addition 
of the words καὶ τῆς νύμφης in Matt. xxv. 1 has now received 
the support of the Old-Syriac version, and is therefore 
proved to be ‘ Western’ in the widest, and not merely in 
the geographical, sense. The omission of the words by 
the majority of authorities can be explained either as an 
omission of what was deemed superfluous, or as a confusion 
of the parable by the introduction of extraneous matter 
irrelevant to the similitude of the Bridegroom, Jesus Him- 
self, on whom attention is to be concentrated. Luke xix. 
37 has been already referred to (pp. 22, 113). Johni. 41 
has been illuminated by the application of a reagent to 
the Sinaitic Syriac. It, along with certain Old-Latin MSS., 
reads πρωΐ (early, in the morning) there, instead of πρῶτον, 
and it is easy to explain how πρῶτον and then πρῶτος 
arose, if we assume that πρωΐ was the original reading.} 


1 Cf. Mrs. Lewis in the Expository Times, Feb. 1909; A. Souter, ἐδίά., 
April 1909; J. H. Moulton, cbid., May 1909; Mrs. Lewis’s introduction to 
her 1910 edition of the Palimpsest, p. xli. 


x.] THE FUTURE OUTLOOK 139 


Nor can there, I think, be any doubt that in John viii. 34 
we ought now to strike out the words τῆς ἁμαρτίας (of sin), 
and render ‘ Every one that doeth sin is a slave. The 
omission is supported by D, 6 of the Old-Latin, the Old- 
Syriac, Clement of Alexandria twice, Cyprian, and by the 
later Western authors, Faustinus, Gregory of ilvira 
(twice), and St. Patrick. No Western reading has better 
support than this, and τῆς ἁμαρτίας is easily explained as an 
addition made in the interests of clearness. ‘The fact that 
at the same time the force of the passage is destroyed 
would not trouble a reviser. The same thing has happened 
in Eph. iii. 14, where the intentional assonance between 
πατέρα and πατριά is obscured by the theologically unim- 
peachable insertion τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Again, 
it seems that in John xi. 25 there is a good deal to be said 
for the omission of καὶ ἡ ζωή, supported as it is by two 
Old-Latin MSS. as well as the Old-Syriac version, and 
citations in Cyprian and Titus of Bostra. The precious 
truth that Jesus is the Life also is still preserved in chap. 
xiv. 6, and the addendum in xi. 25 is natural and innocent. 
The Apocalypse is full of such instances, which are gradu- 
ally being detected. The text of Scripture was ΒΆ 76, - I 
to such harmless explanatory additions. 

One part of the theory of Westcott and Hort, which has 
received much attention, must be referred to here. It is 
that of ‘Western Non-Interpolations.’ This name was 
applied by them to certain clauses or verses which are 
rightly (in their opinion) absent from some or all Western 
documents, but present in all other MSS. In these cases 
they allowed the superiority of the Western text over their 
favourite Greek MS(S). B (and x). In the instances 
about to be cited, these two MSS., or B alone, like the bulk 
of the others, exhibit interpolations which are no part of 
the original text. The tendency to make the text as full 
as possible is characteristic of documents in general, and 
decidedly so of the Western group. When, therefore, we 
find Western documents actually showing a shorter text 
than their rivals, there is every presumption that in these 


140 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


cases the Western documents are right. ‘The doubtful 
words are superfluous, and in some cases intrinsically 
suspicious, to say the least; while the motive for their 
insertion is usually obvious.’ With one exception, the 
wrongous interpolation from John xix. 34 in Matt. xxvii. 
49, where Syrian documents back the Western in omission, 
the more important of these Western non-interpolations 
occur in the last three chapters of Luke.? The following 
are the passages : 3 


Matthew vi. 15 
Matthew vi. 25 [ἢ τί πίητε) 
. Matthew ix. 34 [ot δὲ Φαρισαῖοι... δαιμόνια. 
Matthew xiii. 33 [ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς] 
. Matthew xxi. 44 Hat ὁ πεσὼν... λικμήσει αὐτόν. 
Matthew xxili. 26 [καὶ τῆς παροψίδος] 
. Matthew xxvii. 49 fin. [[[ἄλλος δὲ... αἷμα.]]} 
. Mark ii. 22 [ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς] 
. Mark x. 2 [προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι] 
10. Mark xiv. 39 [τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον εἰπών] 
11. Luke v. 39 [Οὐδεὶς . . χρηστός ἐστιν. 
12. Luke x. 41 f. [μεριμνᾷς . . . ἢ ἑνός"} 
13. Luke xii. 19 [κείμενα. . . φάγε, πίε] 
-+ 14. Luke xii. 21 [Otros ... εἰς θεὸν πλουτῶν. 
ΝΟ δ, Luke xii. 39 [ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ] 
16. Luke xxii. 196, 20 [[τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν... ἐκ χυννόμενον. ]] 
17. Luke xxii. 62 [xai... ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς. 
18. Luke xxiv. 3 ie κυρίου ᾿1ησοῦ]] 


\ ΄ 3... Δ 
TQ παραπτωμᾶτα αὐτῶν] 


(CONT OP CODD μα 


19. Luke xxiv. 6 [[οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη.]]) 
20. Luke xxiv. 9 [ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου] 

21. Luke xxiv. 12 Ὁ δὲ Πέτρος... τὸ ἀρ πη} 
22. Luke xxiv. 86 [[καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. 
23. Luke xxiv. 40 [[καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν... πόδας. | 
24, Luke xxiv. 52 [[καὶ ἀνεφέρετο eis τὸν otpavor]] 
25. Luke xxiv. 53 [[Ππροσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν]] 

26. John iii. 31, 32 [ἐπάνω πάντων ἐστίν et τοῦτο] 
27. John iv. 9 [od yap... Σαμαρείταις.] 


Double brackets are used where the editors are absolutely 


1 Westcott and Hort, p. 175. 

2 Cf. Westcott and Hort, § 240 (pp. 175 f.), and § 888 (pp. 294 f. ). 

3 The best table of all the evidence is in Burkitt’s Evangelion da-Mephar- 
reshé, vol. 11. p. 229. 


x.] THE FUTURE OUTLOOK 14] 


certain that the words form no part of the original text : 
single brackets where the case does not seem quite so clear. 
The evidence of the Old-Syriac has an important bearing 
on the character of these interpolations. The discovery 
of the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript shows that they are not 
all homogeneous.!. The Old-Syriac agrees in omitting Nos. 
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 23,25. In the cases of Nos. 16, 18, 24, 
26, 27 its evidence is doubtful. At Nos. 1, 2, 11 the Sinaitic 
MS. is not extant. But Nos. 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 
22 are extant in the Sinaitic MS. This fact proves the non- 
homogeneity of the interpolations. They are not all the 
result of one critical process, but at least two processes 
must have preceded their insertion into the original text. 
In Nos. 18 and 24 the Old-Syriac has an interpolated text, 
but the interpolation differs in wording from that in x B; in 
the case of No. 16 harmonising influence, probably from the 
Diatessaron, has been at work. In Luke xii. 19 (No. 13) 
it is probable that the words omitted by the Western 
authorities Ὁ Lat. (vet.) are after all genuine ; the omission 
is explained by Burkitt as due to the difficulty of under- 
standing how a ‘soul’ could ‘eat’ or ‘drink.’ Probably 
also in Nos. 8, 10, 11 (?), and 14 the Old-Syriac is right in 
retaining the disputed passage. No. 21 is probably an 
interpolation in our MSS. of the Old-Syriac, and no part 
of the original version ; similar cases are Nos. 17, 19, and 
22. The Old-Syriac, then, was free from the interpolations 
characteristic of non-Western documents, and at the same 
time helps us to revise Westcott and Hort’s list and to 
differentiate between the various items in it. 

A small point in which later discoveries have enabled us 
to make an advance on the careful and laborious researches 
of Westcott and Hort is that of the oRTHOGRAPHY of the 
Greek text. Nothing could be more admirable of its kind 
than their sections 393-404 (pp. 301-10) and Appendix, 
pp. 143-73, on this subject. But these were dependent on 
data, not, perhaps, always reliable, and circumscribed in 
their range. Since their time, not only have Schmiedel 


1 Here I follow Burkitt (Hv. da-Meph. ii. 228 ff.) very closely. 


142 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


(in his revision of Winer’s Grammatik),} and Von Soden in 
various parts of his huge work,? devoted much attention 
to this subject, but the enormous discoveries of fresh dated 
papyri of the New Testament period have provided us 
with material for wider and surer inductions, which will not 
only bring us nearer to the original autograph of the New 
Testament, but will greatly simplify the grammar of it 
in many places. Professor J. H. Moulton in his Grammar 3 
as also Crénert,4 Helbing,> Mayser,* Thackeray,’ Rader- 
macher,® and others, have collected much valuab!e material 
on this subject, some of which may be here borrowed in 
illustration of our point. The ‘ unusual aspirated forms’ 
of Westcott and Hort (page 143), ἐφ᾽ ἐλπίδι, ete., have 
been found in abundance in papyri and inscriptions. There 
can be little doubt that in the first century A.D. ἑλπίς was 
a great deal commoner than ἐλπίς. In this and other 
respects it will be wise to follow the great uncials where 
they give a form which strikes us as being out of the 
common. The coalescence of two -i sounds produced the 
forms ταμεῖον," πεῖν, ὑγεία. The oldest papyrus documents 
containing parts of the New Testament almost invariably 
write the -v ἐφελκυστικόν. We shall probably not be 
wrong in printing it everywhere in a new critical text of 
the New Testament. The papyri have enabled us to see 
that a distinction was drawn between γέννημα (from γεννάω, 
I beget), ‘a young animal,’ and γένημα (from γίνομαι, 1 come 


1G. B. Winer’s Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Achte 
Auflage, neu bearbeitet von P. W. Schmiedel, i. Theil (Gottingen, 1894) ; ii. 
Theil (Géttingen, 1897, 1898), as yet unfinished. 

2 For example, pp. 13860 ff., 1688 ff. 

3 A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, vol. i. Pro- 
legomena, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh, 1910). Also translated into German (1911). 

4 Memoria Graeca Herculanensis ( Leipzig, 1903). 

5 Grammatik der Septuaginta, Laut- und Wortlehre (Gottingen, 1907), 
which, spite of Wackernagel’s strictures, is of value. 

6 Grammatik der griechischen Papyrt aus der Ptoleméerzeit (Leipzig, 1906). 

7 A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 
vol. i. (Cambridge, 1909). 

8 Neutestamentliche Grammatik, das Griechisch des Neuen Testaments 
in Zusammenhang mit der Volkssprache, dargestellt von L. Radermacher 
(Tiibingen, 1911). 

9 We can see that this form had not come into being in the Ptolemaic age 
(cf. Mayser, op. cit., p. 92). 


x.] THE FUTURE OUTLOOK 143 


into being), ‘a vegetable product.’ Westcott and Hort 
were wrong in calling ἀραβών (with one p) ‘only Western.’ 
In Egyptian papyri ἀραβών and ἀρραβών are about equally 
frequent. Examples such as these might be multiplied. 
They show that we shall be able to be much more precise 
in regard to orthography in our Greek texts of the New 
Testament in future. With regard to some words, we are 
so well informed from dated Egyptian documents that we 
can trace the rise and fall and sometimes the resurrection 
of certain forms. Orthography is no doubt a minor matter, 
but no fact is too slight to deserve attention when our 
concern is one of such moment as the original words of our 
New Testament. 

But if it does not seem to us that the text of Westcott 
and Hort will be altered in many passages, there is a vast 
deal yet to be done, part of which we have already indicated. 
It is the duty of the Church not only to reconstruct the 
text of Scripture, but also to write its history. To take 
only one section at this point, the ancient commentators 
are an almost entirely neglected field, crying out for 
workers. By critical processes the texts which these 
commentators used can for the most part be reconstructed, 
as ‘ subnotation ’ is their regular practice ; in other words, 
they take a clause or verse of Scripture, and then annotate 
below it. The discovery of a new uncial is always hailed 
with interest, but few seem to have the patience to attempt 
the restoration of such ancient texts as are lurking in the 
MSS. of Ambrosiaster’s commentary on the Epistles of 
Paul. One of the tasks of the future must be the critical 
editing of all the New Testament commentaries preceding 
the invention of printing, if only for the sake of the texts 
lurking in them. It would be a great benefit if such texts, 
after critical reconstruction, were separately published in 
extenso. Some such proceeding is an indispensable pre- 
liminary to a complete knowledge of the history of the text. 

Nor is the matter of the commentaries themselves to be 
neglected. This, also, must be critically edited, if only for 
the sake of the accompanying Scripture text. The com- 


144 THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


ment occasionally shows that the text of the passage of 
Scripture has been doctored by scribes. But the comments 
themselves are not without importance. It is true, of 
course, that every age must comment on Scripture for itself, 
but it is also true that many correct explanations are to 
be found in those commentaries, and the oldest known 
commentator to give a correct explanation should get the 
credit for it. Again, ancient commentators, like modern, 
borrowed much from their predecessors. All the com- 
mentaries should be edited with this in mind, the borrowings 
being clearly indicated. This task, however, belongs rather 
to the department of exegesis than to that of textual criti- 
cism. Yet, in conclusion, it must be obvious that these 
early commentators, being nearer in time to apostolic days, 
have some advantages denied to us in the interpretation of 
Scripture, particularly the Greek writers. 

One of the most fascinating, as well as one of the most 
necessary, corollaries of this work is the correlation of texts 
found in Fathers with those found in extant MSS. It is 
in Latin that such signal work has been done in this depart- 
ment, and all within the last half-century. Every critical 
edition of a Father and every exact copy of a MS. makes 
this more nearly possible. Examples have already been 
given in an earlier chapter. It is only in this way that 
the history of the text can be even partially written, but 
individual workers must be content to cultivate a small 
field, and cultivate it well. The material will increase in 
quantity and also in quality, and broad but sure generalisa- 
tions will become more and more possible. 

The most suggestive part of Von Soden’s large work 
is that where, at the conclusion of his introduction, he 
enumerates a number of tasks which the future ought to 
undertake. Some of them may be mentioned here: ‘ An 
investigation of the history of the European Latin pre- 
Hieronymian version, with the reconstruction of its original 
form as goal!; a collection, as critically sifted as possible, 


1 Rev, E. S. Buchanan has already prepared in MS. for the Gospel of Mark 
substantially what Von Soden desires. 


x.] THE FUTURE OUTLOOK 145 


of all patristic citations in the Greek and Latin languages 
prior to the date +325, but including Augustine’s; at the 
same time the treatment of citations by translators of 
Greek patristic works into Latin is to be tested; a sys- 
tematic investigation of all patristic citations in the fourth 
century, to fix whether and how far the recensions have 
persisted in their original words (vocabulary) ; monographs 
on single manuscripts or groups of manuscripts, including 
the previous history and the character of the therein 
reproduced text and the history of the manuscript; a 
restoration of the archetype of the bilingual edition of Paul 
on the basis of DE FG, a task complete in itself and not 
difficult nor tedious, which could be accomplished by a 
university seminar for textual criticism in two terms; a 
fixing of the possible interworkings between the Egyptian 
translations and Greek texts, specially the H text, as also 
of the direct relations between the Sahidic and Bohairic 
translations in their original forms and their possible stages 
of development; the translation of Ulfilas, source and 
causes of its divergences from K (after the manner of 
Odefoy, Das gotische Lukas-Evangelium, 1908); revision 
of the Wordsworth-White text of Jerome, the establish- 
ment of the principles followed by Jerome in his revision 
of the Old-Latin text, as also of the Greek text consulted 
by him in connexion with this; the Greek texts behind the 
later Oriental translations, so far as they are made directly 
from Greek (this has as yet been fixed more or less exactly 
only for the Armenian and the Ethiopic).’ 


ἡ 


Υ ἣ au 
Ai ἰὴ Ἢ 


THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


CHAPTER I 
PRELIMINARY 


THe IDEA AND THE WoRD 


THE idea of a canon, or exclusive selection of sacred books 
for use in public worship, is ultimately derived by the 
Church from Judaism, and some account of the formation 
of the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament! seems necessary 
as the model on which, consciously or unconsciously, the 
later New Testament Canon was formed. The canonical 
Old Testament is in three parts: Law, Prophets, and 
Writings. The tradition is that the Old Testament Canon 
was completely fixed at one time, but this is highly im- 
probable. The canonisation of the Old Testament was a 
gradual process. The Law (that is, the Pentateuch) was 
the first part to be canonised. This began in the year 
621, and was finally accomplished in 444. Compared with 
all the other books of the Jewish Canon the Law was proto- 
canonical, something altogether apart from and above the 
other canonical writings. If modern critical views are 
right, the Law was nevertheless subjected to rather free 
handling even after it became canonical. The Law was, in 
fact, canonical, but there was at first no canonical text of 
it. The ‘prophets’ are classified as the ‘former prophets ’ 
and the ‘latter prophets.’ By the ‘former prophets’ 
is to be understood what we call the historical books. 
These can hardly have been canonical as early as 250. 
The collection of the ‘ latter prophets,’ that is, the prophetic 
writings proper, may be placed about 200, but their 


1] follow here Cornill, Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old 
Testament (Eng. tr. by Box) (London, 1907), pp. 463 ff 


150 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


canonisation ‘took place later. It was only in the second 
Christian century that the Old Testament Canon was 
finally closed, and this was an act of Talmudic Judaism 
for the purpose of self-preservation. 

Alexandria followed different lines from Palestine. The 
Alexandrine Jews followed the principle of using whatever 
was suitable for edification, and thus admitted many 
Greek writings to which Palestine lent no countenance. 
The same kind of laxity survived in the Egyptian churches. 
The influence of the Greek was infinitely greater than that 
of the Hebrew, as we shall see below. 

The Canon or the Bible of the early Church consisted of 
the Old Testament, with the Apocrypha, in the Septuagint 
Greek translation.1. This translation, which had been 
gradually made between the third century B.c. and the 
first century B.C. (or A.D.) in Egypt, was the form in which 
the multitudinous Jews of the Dispersion, who had lost 
all knowledge of Hebrew, read their Old Testament. To 
them it had acquired the same sanctity as the original. 
To them it was, one may say, the original. It was this 
that was read always in their synagogues. On it their 
spiritual life had been nurtured for centuries. When Paul 
preached Christianity to the Jewish Diaspora, he read and 
commented on this translation in the Jewish synagogue, 
as the invariable preliminary to his mission. He preached 
always to the Jews first. The numerous Jewish prose- 
lytes also regarded the Septuagint Old Testament with the 
same reverence as those who were Jews by blood. As, 
finally, the first preachers of Christianity were themselves 
Jews, to whom the Old Testament was the Word of God, 
as it had been to Jesus Himself, we can see how natural 
it was that the Jewish-Gentile Church, as the new Israel, 
the only true sons of Abraham, should take over the LXX 
as its inalienable property. The Christians were taught 
to interpret it as referring to their own Jesus as Messiah, 
and to regard references in it to 6 κύριος as allusions to the 


1 Some of the Apocryphal books are probably not translations but 
originals: the statement, however, may stand in this general form. 


I.] PRELIMINARY 151 


crucified and now glorified Messiah. The New Testament 
writers habitually use the LX X alone. So thoroughly was 
the transference of property effected, that early in the 
second century the non-Christian Jews felt that they could 
no longer regard the book as their own, and a fresh trans- 
lation into Greek was made for their use by Aquila, of 
Sinope in Pontus. Henceforth the Septuagint was ex- 
clusively a Christian book. 

But if the Old Testament had all the authority of a 
Divine word to all the Christians, there was one other 
source of Divine truth which was equally authoritative, 
namely, the sayings of Our Lord Himself. The words of 
the Messiah, the vicegerent of Jehovah—nay, in a sense, 
God Himself—could be of no less authority than those of 
the Law and Prophets. And it must have been so from the 
very first. The apostles in their evangelistic propaganda 
must have used almost exclusively the words of good 
news which they had heard from Jesus Himself. Nor 
does Paul himself appear at any disadvantage in this 
matter, as compared with the older apostles. Whencesoever 
derived, his knowledge of his Lord’s teaching was com- 
plete and exact. It may be, as Moulton thinks,’ that he 
had heard words from the lips of Jesus Himself. But 
whether or no, that he knew the teaching of Jesus 
thoroughly is beyond cavil. Even close students of the 
Gospels and Epistles would probably be surprised at the 
stupendous list of parallels between the two which Alfred 
Resch has provided in his Der Paulinismus und die Logia 
Jesu,2 and Resch has no doubt given rather too much than 
too little, but the conviction deepens in the present writer 
that Paul had a written compendium of Jesus’ teaching, 
of which traces appear in his writings. Besides the well- 
known ‘It is happier to give than to receive,’ 3. which itself 
proves that he had some source for sayings of Jesus now 
lost, there are clear traces in 1 Thess. v. 4 (cf. Matt. xxiv. 


1 Hzposttor, July 1911. 

2 Leipzig, 1904. 

3 Perhaps more exactly recorded in Apost. Const., ‘happy is the offerer 
than the receiver’ (Resch, Agrapha2 (Leipzig, 1906), p. 91). 


152 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


43 and Luke xii. 39) and 1 Cor. xii. 2 (cf. Matt. xvii. 20, 
xxi. 21; Mark xi. 23; Luke xvii. 6) of knowledge of the 
sayings of Jesus. Sayings of Jesus, then, orally or in writ- 
ing, were in circulation throughout the earliest churches 
of all, and had the same authority as the Old Testament. 

How long this state of afiairs lasted we cannot say. 
The history of the Church between the time at which 
Paul’s ministry ceased and the end of the first century 
is one that can be surmised more easily than it can be 
written, and if this is true of the general history, it is true 
also of the gradual introduction of certain works now in 
our New Testament into the services of the Church. The 
letters of Paul sent to special churches for special purposes 
were, no doubt, treasured in these churches, and read 
perhaps at frequent intervals to the congregations con- 
cerned ; but at what time copies began to circulate beyond 
them, and to be read also before churches to which they 
were not addressed, and when, finally, a collection of them 
was made, it is impossible to say. Of the early history 
of the Gospels we know equally little. There must have 
been a time when each had an independent existence, long 
or short, but of this period we know nothing. It is not, in 
fact, till about the end of the second century that we get 
into more or less clear daylight. 

In the course of our study of this subject, we must keep 
apart in our minds, as far as possible, two things which 
are apt to be confused. The first is the date at which the 
existence of a particular book is attested by clear evidence 
in a later writer that he knows its existence. This, of 
course, is not our primary concern. The second is the 
date and place at which it is first clearly apparent that 
a particular book is ‘ canonical,’ that is, is read in the 
public official services of a church. Unfortunately it is 
not possible entirely to separate these two things. There 
is, in fact, a presumption that, if a Church writer quotes 
a book at all frequently, that book was authoritative in 
the Church to which he belonged, but a solitary reference 
to a sacred book in a learned writer like Clement or Origen 


I.] PRELIMINARY 153 


does not carry this conclusion with it. Fortunately, how- 
ever, writers themselves occasionally speak in such a way 
as makes it certain whether the book in question was 
read in public services or not. 

A brief recapitulation of the available evidence as to the 
early existence of particular documents now in our New 
Testament may not be useless at this point. The evidence 
of the Apostolic Fathers has been examined with care— 
for the Gospels by Professor Sanday,' for the New Testament 
as a whole by a group of Oxford scholars.? At the time at 
which Dr. Sanday’s work was published, the Didache had 
not been discovered? The following are the works showing 
the first marked trace of particular New Testament books, 
according to the investigations of a committee of the 
Oxford Society of Historical Theology. The Synoptic 
tradition is first clearly evidenced by Barnabas and the 
Didache. The use of Matthew is first seen clearly in the 
Didache, of Mark in Hermas, of Luke in the Didache, and 
of John in Ignatius. The existence of the following books 
is first attested by First Clement : Acts, Romans (but see 
also under Barnabas), First Corinthians, Titus, Hebrews 
(but see Barnabas also), and the Apocalypse (?). The 
following books first appear in Barnabas: Romans (but 
see under First Clement), Ephesians (but see under 
Ignatius also), Colossians (?), Hebrews (but see under 
First Clement). The existence of the following is first 
attested by Ignatius: Galatians, Ephesians (but see also 
under Barnabas), Philippians, First and Second Timothy. 
Polycarp contains the first evidence of the existence of 
Second Corinthians, Second Thessalonians, First Peter 
and First John. Evidence of First Thessalonians (?) and 
James is first found in Hermas.> Evidence of the follow- 
ing books is entirely wanting in the Apostolic Fathers: 
Philemon, Second Peter,Second John, Third John, and Jude. 


1 The Gospels in the Second Century (London, 1876). 

2 The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford, 1905). 

3 Nor indeed had Tatian’s Diatessaron. 

4 Op. cit., p. 137. 

5 Some might, however, argue that it is ‘James’ who has used Hermas. 


154 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


The word ‘Canon’ has had a history unsurpassed in 
interest, perhaps, by any other word in the Greek language. 
Cognate, perhaps, with κάνη (κάννα), a reed (and so a pipe), 
a word which is borrowed from some Semitic language, 
κανών is a reed, especially when used as a tool, and then a 
tool, whether made of wood or not. It is most often a tool 
of the carpenter or builder, used for determining the right 
direction of a piece of wood or stone which is to be used 
in building—the level, a simple piece of wood carefully made 
and usually provided with a scale, exactly translated by 
the Latin regula. Besides being straight, it had to be 
incapable of bending. It was used also for the scribe’s 
ruler, regula. It is from this literal sense of level, ruler, 
that all the metaphorical senses are derived. Of these 
the most important are the following: (1) Written laws as 
the rule for discerning right and wrong, or as the rule of 
behaviour. Thus, though not frequently, the Gospel or 
the words of Jesus or the Holy Scriptures are spoken of as 
a κανών. (2) The exemplary man, what we might call 
the ideal man, is compared to a ruler, and called κανών. 
(3) The rules of philosophers and grammarians expressed 
in clauses, especially ethical rules. In the Church, from 
the middle of the second century, we find the expressions 
ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας (regula veritatis), ὁ κανὼν τῆς πίστεως 
(regula fide) very frequently, in the sense of the for- 
mulated confession of the Christian faith, especially the 
baptismal creed ; and then in a wider sense, the contents 
of the teaching generally recognised in the Church (this 
last almost exclusively Greek, 6 ἐκκλησιαστικὸς κανών or ὁ 
κανὼν τῆς ἐκκλησίας). The rule of truth (faith) is that norm 
according to which all one’s teaching and life must be 
conformed, as it comes from divine sources. The idea of 
the Church rule is a gradual development, namely, that the 
Church herself has drawn up a body of rules and com- 
municated them to her members for them to follow. (4) 


1 Clem., Sér., iv. 15 (after citing words of Jesus) κατὰ τὸν κανόνα τοῦ 
εὐαγγελίου πολιτευσάμενος, ‘having lived his life according to the rules of 
the Gospel’: Tert., c. Marc., iii. 17, oportet actum eius ad scripturarum 
regulam (standard) recognosct, etc. ' 


I.] PRELIMINARY 155 


Thus comes the sense ecclesiastical ordinance, each simple 
ordinance of real or fictitious ecclesiastical authority, 
especially one passed by a synod. (5) The ordinance 
which fixes the regular amount (of corn, etc.) to be paid 
(annually) by a province or a property gives its name to 
the amount itself, and thus κανών comes to mean the 
regular (yearly) natural supply, and tribute generally, both 
in political and Church life. (6) A much commoner use, 
probably derived from the row of marks indicating scale or 
measurement on the rule or level, is that of list (ΞεΞ κατάλογος), 
index, table (=7ivag). This is the sense which we find in the 
Eusebian Canons of the Gospels, ten lists of passages in the 
Gospels, consisting of numbers simply ;! also in Priscil- 
lian’s and other canones, lists of subject matter contained 
in the Pauline Epistles, with references attached, etc. 
(7) =«Arpos, lot, a list of persons eligible for office or 
privilege, a sense derived from (6). (8) The canon of the 
mass, so derived probably from the list of persons specially 
commemorated in it, the saints, as well as the living and 
dead, for whom prayers are asked. To put a dead person 
in such a list is to canonise him. 

The regular use of the word in connexion with the Bible 
is not found before the middle of the fourth century. 
The first instance is in Athanasius’ Decrees of the Synod of 
Nicaea,? written soon after 350, in which the phrase occurs, 
in connexion with the Shepherd of Hermas, μὴ ὃν ἐκ τοῦ 
κανόνος, not belonging to the canon. In his Easter Letter 
of 367 he refers to the Scriptures as κανονιζόμενα, in Opposi- 
tion to the ἀπόκρυφα, and to distinguish them from the 
ἀναγινωσκόμενα. Other somewhat later contemporary 
instances of such expressions might be quoted, but their 
use is by no means universal, to the exclusion of earlier 
expressions which convey the same idea in different words. 
In fact, the idea of a Canon is much older than the word 
in that sense. Despite the fact, however, that the word 
was not universally employed, its use was sufficiently 


1 The rules for their use are contained in the letter of Eusebius to Carpian, 
prefixed to the Canones. No. 18, 


156 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


wide to create various derivatives, such as κανονίζειν, ‘ to 
put into a (the) canon,’ ἀποκανονίξειν, ‘to put out of a (the) 
canon,’ κανονικός (of a book), ‘ belonging to a (the) canon,’ 
ἀκανόνιστος, ‘not belonging to a (the) canon.’ There can 
be no doubt that the word κανών used thus with reference 
to the Bible is directly derived from sense (6) above, that 
of list. A κανών is a list of biblical books which may be 
read in the public services of a church, and, if such be pro- 
duced with the authority of a synod or council, of the 
Church. The use of the word had in the mind of its first 
creator no other sense than just this. It is merely by the 
accident that a list if promulgated by an ecclesiastical body 
tends thereby to acquire an ecclesiastical authority that 
that mixture in sense has been produced which the word 
κανών has since exhibited. A confusion with the other 
sense of rule (3, above), already familiar in Church life, 
was naturally produced. The Greek word early found 
entry among the Latins, occurring as it does in the 
Cheltenham Canon (for which see below) of date about 
360, and later in Priscillian, Filaster, Rufinus, and Augus- 
tine.1 There is the difference, however, that some of these 
Latins call the Bible itself canon. The occasional applica- 
tion, also, of regularis as a translation of κανονικός, was 
doomed to cause misunderstanding among the Latins as to 
the original force of the term canon, used in connexion 
with Scripture. This caused them to conceive of Scripture 
as the highest, and in matters of faith the final, authority. 
The canon was closed, complete, and authoritative in the 
way that the κανών never was, and, indeed, never has been. 
Thus enters in the Latin genius for law and order, and takes 
a separate course from the Greek freedom. 

Previous to the middle of the fourth century the idea of 
an exclusive collection of documents of divine revelation 
is expressed by (παλαιὰ and καινὴ) διαθήκη. By διαθήκη is 
meant in ordinary Greek ‘a last will and testament,’ but 
the strange thing is that in the Septuagint and in the New 


1 The modern character of the word is illustrated by his Hpistle 1xxxii. 3, 
solis eis scripturarum libris, qui iam canonici appellantur. 


1.] PRELIMINARY 157 


_ Testament! the word is employed in the sense of συνθήκη, 
‘a covenant’ or ‘compact’ between God and man, especi- 
ally when regarded on the Godward side.? The Old Testa- 
ment, as the record containing the bargain between God 
and Abraham, and God and Moses, came to be known in 
Greek-speaking circles as διαθήκη. When the further revela- 
tion came, the final bargain between God and His creatures, 
sealed in the way of earlier covenants by the blood of a 
victim, Jesus, it became necessary to distinguish between 
the collection of early documents testifying to this, and 
those which testified to the earlier covenant, which was 
superseded but still held in remembrance and regard. This 
was done by the addition of the word ‘old,’ παλαιά, vetus, 
not ἀρχαία, antigua, not ‘antiquated’: old, yet still 
valuable. So the other was called ‘ new,’ καινή, fresh, not 
véa, youthful, young in age, but fresh as regards man’s 
knowledge of it. The words ἐνδιάθηκος and ἐνδιάθετος were 
used of documents within these διαθῆκαι. But all these 
words as applied to Scripture are relatively late, not appear- 
ing before the end of the second century, and only occasion- 
ally then. The attempt to render διαθήκη into Latin was 
attended with some fluctuation. Tertullian, who did so 
much to create a Latin Christian terminology, sometimes 
represents it by instrumentum, a legal term meaning a 
document drawn up in proper (legal) form, sometimes by 
testamentum, which, as it means ‘ will and testament,’ is 
an exact translation of the everyday sense of διαθήκη, but 
an incorrect rendering of the biblical sense. It was, how- 
ever, this latter rendering which was destined to survive: 
instrumentum had but a brief currency.® 

By far the most widespread expressions both in early 


1 Cf., for instance, Exod. xxiv. 7, Deut. ix. 9, 2 Cor. ili. 14. 

2 Except in Heb. ix. 16, where most scholars admit the everyday sense. 
Riggenbach, Der Begriff der ALAOHKH im Hebriierbr ief, in Theologische 
Studien Theodor Zain zum 10. Oktober 1968 dargebracht (Leipzig, 1908), pp. 
289-316 [also obtainable separately], has argued for this use throughout 
iis See also Moulton and Milligan, Expositor (London, 1908), ii. pp. 


3 Sometimes we find in Latin wetws and novum used absolutely, without 
testamentum or any other word. IJnstruwmento in Pseudo-Jerome in Rom. vii. 
12 (Migne, P. Z., xxx.) is an interpolation. 


158 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


and later times were more general. Even at the time 
when the New Testament was being written, ἡ γραφή 
(singular) was regularly employed in the sense ‘ passage of 
Scripture. The whole collection of the Old Testament 
writings was known, in the plural, as ai ypadai, scripturae, 
the writings (par excellence). Sometimes epithets were 
added, ἅγιαι (sanctae), ἱεραί (sacrae), θεῖαι (diwinae), κυριακαί 
(dominicae). The singular, in a collective sense, of the 
whole of Scripture, is much rarer than the plural, but is, 
on the whole, commoner in later times than it is in the 
earlier. The whole Old Testament is sometimes spoken 
of as ‘the Old Law,’ and the whole New Testament as 
‘the New Law.’ And all the terms mentioned are used of 
the Scriptures in the Church as the exclusive documents 
of divine revelation, read in the public worship of the 
Church, as distinguished from other books, however edify- 
ing and truly Christian in their tendency. The Church 
as such only possesses those writings that are read in her 
public services. This idea comes out clearly in various 
passages of the Muratorian Canon. In Greek the public 
reading is expressed by the words δημοσιεύεσθαι (δημεύεσ θαι) 
ev ἐκκλησίαις. The original sense of the word ἀπόκρυφος is 
in contrast to that of ἐνδίαθηκος, ete. A work is ἀπόκρυφος 
(ἀπόρρητος), not because any stigma is attached to it, but 
simply because it is read not in public service, but only 
in private, in secret. ᾿Απόκρυφοι, ἀπόρρητοι, apocryphi, 
secreti, are, in fact, also the opposites of pyro, manifestt, 
vulgatt, publici. But we must not imagine any hard and 
fast system in the earliest generations obtaining throughout 
all churches. Down to and including the fourth century 
there were important differences in attitude towards certain 
books in various parts of the Church catholic. Sometimes 
even in churches of the same province or place a book was 
received in one church, while rejected in another. Even 
the idea of regular reading at public worship was not 
absolutely fixed everywhere. Communications in no 
sense scriptural were sometimes read aloud toa congregation 
instead of Scripture lessons, and not infrequently accounts 


τ:} PRELIMINARY 159 


of martyrs and their sufferings were so substituted, especially 
on their feast days in the churches to which they had 
belonged. As the spiritual life of the congregations was 
a primary object of the services, a wise variety, which 
avoided all mere formality, was a real sign of spiritual 
health. Despite this variety, however, there was always 
present and continually growing in these early generations 
a more or less fixed idea as to the canonicity of certain 
books, by which canonicity is meant only their right to 
be read in the public worship of God: ἐκκλησιαζόμενος and 
ἐκκλησιαστικός remain, in fact, the equivalents of κανονικός. 
It is not till about 330 to 350 that lists of these books 
were drawn up in the effort to secure uniformity every- 
where. 

The basis of this reception in the Church was the Church’s 
belief that these particular books,.and these only, had been 
handed over to the Church. Thus Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom. ili. 93) speaks of the τὰ παραδεδομένα ἡμῖν τέτταρα 
εὐαγγέλια, ‘ the four Gospels that have been handed down to 
us,’ in contrast to the ‘ Gospel according to the Egyptians.’ 
So far as we know, even the early Church possessed no 
record who it was who handed these works over. Irenaeus 
in various well-known passages practically speaks of the 
writing of the Gospels as itself a handing over of them to 
various churches, as it was with the object of serving the 
Church that they were written.! Similarly, it was assumed 
as self-evident that the Epistles and the Apocalypse were 
really intended for a wider circle than those actually ad- 
dressed in them at the first. As to the Old Testament 
there could, of course, be no ambiguity. The Apostles 
and the early ‘ Fathers ’ had handed over just these writings 
and no others to the Church. Such was the regular belief 
in the third and fourth centuries, and also later. 


- Adv, Haer., i. 27, 2; iii. 1, 1. 11, 9; iv. 34,1. 


160 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


CHAPTER II 
EARLIEST COLLECTIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS 


THE exact dates of the composition of our GOSPELS are 
unknown. A large number of investigators would agree 
that Mark’s Gospel is earlier than either Matthew’s or 
Luke’s, as it is now commonly considered to have been a 
principal source of both. There would also be general 
agreement that the Fourth Gospel is later than any of 
the Synoptics. Its internal character suggests this; but 
if it be true, as Abbott argues, that John deliberately 
inserts Marcan matter which had been passed over in 
silence by Matthew and Luke, it can only be because he 
was acquainted with all three, and desired to correct what 
he considered defects of the later pair by the Petrine Mark. 
Some such scheme as the following would meet with wide 
approval among cautious and learned critics: Mark 
between 60 and 70, Matthew and Luke between 70 and 80, 
and John about 90 to 100 4.p. But Harnack has recently 
argued for a considerably earlier date for the Synoptics.? 
He would put Mark at latest between 50 and 60, Matthew 
immediately after 70, and Luke in Paul’s lifetime. We 
shall not be far wrong in assuming that the fourfold Gospel, 
as we know it, can hardly have existed before the year 100. 

The earlies mention of a written Gospel is in the Didache 
(? 110). The Lord’s Prayer is there (viii. 2) introduced by 
the words ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ, 
οὕτω προσεύχεσθε, and in three other passages ‘the 

1 Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 71 (John). 

2 Neue Untersuchungen zur A postelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der 


synoptischen Hvangelien (Leipzig, 1911), Eng. tr. The Date of Acts, etc. 
(London, 1911). : 


1.1} COLLECTIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS 161 


Gospel’ (singular) is referred to, and clearly means ‘ the 
(written) Gospel.’ So exactly also in Ignatius, who was 
contemporary with the date we have approved for the 
Didache.! From such references it is perfectly clear that 
already at this time ‘the Gospel’ was something well 
known in the churches, a document or body of documents, 
to which it was sufficient to appeal without further speci- 
fication. It is very exceptional to find any name of an 
author used, in referring to a written Gospel. This very 
fact suggests that it was a set of documents, to which the 
collective term ‘ Gospel’ was already applied, as we know 
it regularly was ata later time. Who first united the four 
into one group or set it is quite impossible to say, but it 
is not improbable that the union took place either in the 
province of Asia or in Italy, in the first instance. The 
Gospel of Matthew seems from the first to have obtained 
a pre-eminence never accorded to the others. Citations 
of Gospel matter are generally nearer in language to it than 
to the others: Papias tells us that at Ephesus, in the life- 
time of his teacher John, a Gospel of Mark was used.? 
Cerinthus, John’s contemporary, preferred it to any other.’ 
The reference of Papias to Matthew’s Gospel is well known.‘ 
The spurious ending of Mark, chapter xvi., verses 9 to 20, 
which may have been written by Aristion, in Papias’s period 
and milieu, is obviously in the main a cento from the 
Gospels of Luke (chap. xxiv.) and John (chap. xx.), and. 
thus attests their existence and value at the period at 
which it was written. The non-canonical Gospels, such as 
the Gospel of Peter, derive all their valuable matter from 
our canonical Gospels. Marcion’s Gospel was a deliberate 
preference of Luke’s Gospel to the others as more nearly 
representing his own point of view. Tatian employed our 
canonical Gospels, and no other Gospels, as the basis of 
his Diatessaron. Their position must, therefore, have 

1 Cf. Philad. viii. 2: ἤκουσά τινων λεγόντων ὅτι, “ ἐὰν μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀρχαίοις 
oe archives) εὕρω, ἐν Tw εὐαγγελίῳ, οὐ πιστεύω. 

2 Zahn, Hinletung, ii.?, ie etc. ; Forschungen, vi. 105, etc. 


3 Tren. iii. 11, 7 (cf. i. 26, 
4 Cf. Professor Peake’s μὴν ἐὰν in i series, pp. 119 f., 122. 


162 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


been long assured in Rome before the date of that com- 
pilation, 170. 

During the period 95 to 140 Zahn can find only four 
Gospel citations which cannot be derived from our four 
Gospels, side by side with many which attest the Church 
use of our four. The four citations are as follows: (a) 
Clem. ii. chap. 5, §§ 2-4: λέγει yap ὁ κύριος" “ ἔσεσθε ὡς ἀρνία 
ἐν μέσῳ λύκων. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰ]έτρος αὐτῷ λέγει" “ ἐὰν οὖν 
διασπαράξωσιν οἱ λύκοι τὰ ἀρνία.᾽ εἶπεν 6 ᾿Ιησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ" 
‘un φοβείσθωσαν τὰ ἀρνία τοὺς λύκους μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτά" 
καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ φοβεῖσθε τοὺς ἀποκτέννοντας ὑμᾶς καὶ μηδὲν ὑμῖν 
δυναμένους ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ φοβεῖσθε τὸν μετὰ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ὑμᾶς 
ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος τοῦ βαλεῖν εἰς γέενναν 
πυρός. This, which may be from the Gospel of Peter, 
seems a make-up from Luke x. 3, Matt. x. 16, Luke xii. 4, 
Matt. x. 28.1 (b) Ibid. 8, ὃ 5: λέγει yap ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγ- 
γελίῳ: “εἰ τὸ μικρὸν οὐκ ἐτηρήσατε, TO μέγα Tis ὑμῖν duce; 
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ πιστὸς ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός 
ἐστιν. This is like Luke xvi. 10-12.2 (c) Ibid. 12, §§ 2-6: 
ἐπερωτηθεὶς yap αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ὑπό τινος, πότε ἥξει αὐτοῦ ἡ 
βασιλεία, εἶπεν" "ὅταν ἔσται τὰ δύο ἕν, καὶ τὸ ἔξω ὡς τὸ ἔσω, 
καὶ τὸ ἄρσεν μετὰ τῆς θηλείας, οὔτε ἄρσεν οὔτε θῆλυ. “τὰ 
δύο᾽ δὲ “ἕν᾽ ἐστιν, ὅταν λαλῶμεν ἑαυτοῖς ἀλήθειαν καὶ ἐν δυσὶν 
σώμασιν ἀνυποκρίτως εἴη μία ψυχή. καὶ “τὸ ἔξω ὡς τὸ ἔσω’ 
τοῦτο λέγει. τὴν ψυχὴν λέγει “τό ἔσω;,᾽ “ 7d’ δὲ “ ἔξω’ τὸ σῶμα 
λέγει. ὃν τρόπον οὖν σου τὸ σῶμα φαίνεται, οὕτως καὶ ἡ ψυχή 
σου δῆλος ἔστω ἐν τοῖς καλοῖς ἔργοις. καὶ ‘Td ἄρσεν μετὰ τῆς 
θηλείας, οὔτε ἄρσεν οὔτε θῆλυ, τοῦτο λέγει" iva ἀδελφὸς ἰδὼν 
ἀδελφὴν οὐδὲν φρονῃ περὶ αὐτῆς θηλυκὸν μηδὲ φρονῇ τι περὶ 
αὑτοῦ ἀρσενικόν. " ταῦτα ὑμῶν ποιούντων, φησίν, “ ἐλεύσεται 
ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ πατρός pov.’ The parts outside the inverted 
commas, namely, the explanatory part, may be due either 
to the evangelist who is being quoted, or to the author 
of ‘Second Clement.’ (ὦ) Ignatius, Zmyrn., 111. 2: ὅτε πρὸς 
τοὺς περὶ Iletpov ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς" “ λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ pe, 


1 Cf. Hemmer’s note in his edition (Paris, 1909). 

2 Zahn points out (Grundriss, p. 39, n. 14) that this is produced by the 
fusion of Luke xvi. 10 and an apocryphal saying found in Iren. 11, 34, 3, and 
Hippolytus, Refut. Haer., x. 88. 


m.] COLLECTIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS 163 


καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον. Compare Luke 
xxiv. 39. What follows in Ignatius may be also in whole 
or in part derived from the same source. The last part 
above was also in the Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, and also perhaps 
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.1 Such are all the 
instances of matter extraneous to our four Gospels in 
that earliest period, and they are in favour of the almost 
unquestioned supremacy of our four Gospels. It must be 
remembered that there was an immense amount of evangelic 
matter floating about at this date. This fact makes it all 
the more worthy of remark that so little of it should have 
passed into the writings of responsible authors. 

The manner of the growth of a collection of Pauline 
Epistles in the Church can be to some extent imagined. 
How many letters Paul really wrote we do not know, but, 
excluding the Pastorals as probably not genuine, at least 
as they stand, and certainly wanting in the oldest canon 
of which we have any exact knowledge, namely Marcion’s, 
we know that he wrote at least four to Corinth, in the 
province of Achaia, of which the second and fourth have 
survived ; three to the province of Asia, namely, ‘ Ephes- 
ians,’ Colossians, and Philemon; three to the province of 
Macedonia, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, and 
Philippians; one to the province of Galatia, and one to 
Rome. The Corinthians probably suppressed the first 
and third letters of Paul, as doing them even less honour 
than those that have survived. The group of three, 
‘Ephesians,’ Colossians, and Philemon, all written about 
the same time, were certainly all read in Colossae, and one 
can well understand how the group would be found at 
Ephesus. Similarly the Macedonian group would be 
known at Thessalonica, and the Epistle to the Galatians 
at some important city in the province. The Epistle to 
the Romans may have been circulated in the East by Paul 
himself as an anonymous epistle, as some scholars think. 
In any case, the best way to circulate anything would be 
to send it to Rome. It will thus be readily seen that any 


1 Orig. de Principiis, praef. 8; Jerome, On Isaiah, lib. 18, prol. 


164 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


person desiring to collect epistles of Paul would only have 
to go to a few leading churches in leading cities to obtain 
all those that have actually survived. The relations 
between the churches were in the first century so close 
and so constant, that very little time would be required 
to gather together all we have got. 

In Ignatius and Polycarp we get the first clear traces of 
knowledge of Paul derived from his letters.1 The way in 
which they refer to Paul shows that they can assume 
knowledge of his letters on the part of communities which 
they address in Asia, Macedonia, Rome. Of definite 
mention of a collection of letters we find the first instance 
in Ignatius. He says, with considerable exaggeration,? 
that Paul remembers (mentions) the Ephesians, ἐν πάσῃ 
ἐπιστολῇ ‘in every letter.’ This implies, of course, know- 
ledge of a considerable number. As a matter of fact, 
the epistles to the Galatians, the Philippians, and the 
Thessalonians make no express mention of the church of 
Ephesus (or the churches of Asia). In his epistle to the 
Philippians, Polycarp recalls the fact that Paul when absent 
had written to them ἐπιστολάς. This is probably a rhetorical 
plural, and does not necessarily imply on Polycarp’s part 
any knowledge of another letter beyond the one we know. 
It is not impossible, however, that he included those to the 
Thessalonians, as if they belonged to the Philippians also, 
for he refers 2 Thess. i. 4 to them directly. Clear traces 
that Philippians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians 
once formed a group by themselves are to be found 
especially in arrangements of the Epistles in Latin sub- 
sisting much later. D (Paul), Clement of Alexandria,‘ 
Tertullian (ca. 197), Victorinus of Pettau (7 303),5 Ambrosi- 
aster (ca. 375),® Pelagius (409), Augustine (7 430), Cassio- 
dorus (ca. 550), etc., and at least fifty Vulgate manuscripts 


pa cuent (95 a.D.) of course refers distinctly to 1 Cor. in his Ep. 
xlviii. 1-3. 

2 Ign., Hph., xii. 2. 3 Polyc., Eph., xi. 3. 4 Protrept, 87. 

5 In his commentary on the Apocalypse. I have been privileged to see 
the sheets of Haussleiter’s forthcoming Vienna edition. 

8 Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 197. 


1.] COLLECTIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS 165 


known to Berger,! place 1 Thess. and 2 Thess. before Col., 
and not after.2, The reference in Second Peter, whatever 
be the date of that pseudepigraph, clearly shows that 
in the time of the writer the Epistles of Paul had been 
collected, and, what is more, were regarded as Scripture 
(iii. 16, ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς... στρεβλοῦσιν ὡς καὶ Tas 
λοιπὰς γραφάς... ‘as also the rest of the Scriptures,’ 
clearly implies that to the writer Paul’s Epistles were 
collected and Scripture). As to the arrangement of 
this early collection as a whole but little is known. It 
was certainly without Hebrews, and possibly First Corin- 
thians began it, and Romans ended it. At least, in the 
second century, both the Muratorian Canon and Tertullian 
have such an arrangement.? First Corinthians may have 
been put first as the longest, and Romans last as anony- 
mous in that collection, or it may have arisen either in 
Rome or in Corinth : we cannot tell, we can only speculate. 

About 140, however, a canon was constructed at Rome, 
of which we possess exact details. The heretic Marcion 
found a number of Pauline Epistles already in existence, 
but considered it necessary for the purpose of his com- 
munities that they should be expurgated and properly 
arranged. It is probable that, in addition to the work of 
arrangement and expurgation,* he equipped them with 
brief prologues and with sections and section headings. 
At least, a set of prologues in Latin, which are undoubtedly 
of Marcionite origin, is found in conjunction with sections 
and section headings, which seem to be constructed for such 
a collection.® From Tertullian and Epiphanius we learn 
the order of the Epistles in this canon. It was Galatians, 
First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Romans, First 
Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, Laodiceans (= Ephe- 


1 Histoire dela Vulgate (Paris, 1893), p. 341. 

2 Origen had possibly 1 Thess., 2 Thess., Phil. (Zahn, Grundriss, p. 36). 
See my notes also to Documents L and Q. 

3 Zahn, Gesch. des Kanons, ii. pp. 59 f., 344-54. 

4 See, for example, my notes on Rom. i. 18, viii. 11, ix. (init.), xii. 18; 
Gal. ii. 14, iii. 6-8, iv. 4, vi. 17. 
᾿ 5 Printed as Document A at the end of this book after De Bruyne and 

orssen. 


166 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


sians), Colossians, Philippians, Philemon. The arrange- 
ment was determined by Marcion’s theology, as Galatians 
is the most anti-Jewish of all the Epistles. Our Epistle 
to the Ephesians he found without title; and determining, 
probably rightly, that it was the Epistle referred to in 
Col. iv. 16 as that which is to come from Laodicea to 
Colossae, gave it the title ‘To the Laodiceans.’! It is 
difficult to determine Marcion’s attitude to the Pastoral 
Epistles, which it is generally believed he must have known, 
but he certainly excluded them from his list. His whole 
collection he named the ἀποστολικόν. 

The fortunes of the Catholic or Canonical or Apostolic 
Epistles before fixity was reached are exceedingly inter- 
esting, but of their earliest history and use we know even 
less than we know of the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles. 
It is not, however, straining probabilities to argue that the 
First Epistle of John and the First Epistle of Peter were 
publicly read in this early period, at least in the province 
of Asia. With regard to the Book of Acts, its close con- 
nexion with the Third Gospel makes it very probable that 
it was read from an early time. The fact that the letters 
in the Apocalypse were addressed to definite churches 
assures its position in the province of Asia, and its secure 
position in the West suggests that it was very early read 
in Italy. Its doubtful position at a later period in the 
East generally, suggests that it never had any great vogue 
outside Asia. About the close of this early period the 
Shepherd of Hermas would appear to Rave been publicly 
read in certain churches, being accorded an important 
place very soon after the date of its composition. 

It will not be amiss at this point to collect the scattered 
data as to the public use of individual books, some of 
which were afterwards included in the New Testament, in 
this early period. The Valentinian school of heretics was 
content to use the four Gospels of the Church, which they 


1 See Souter in Hapositor (Aug. and Oct. 1911); Moffatt in Hapositor 
(Sept. 1911), both preceded by Harnack, Sitzwngsberichte d. k. preuss. Akad. 
der Wiss. for 1910, pp. 693-709, and others. 


m.] COLLECTIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS 167 


interpreted in their own way, with the addition of a ‘ Gospel 
of Truth’ which served to illustrate the teaching of the 
regular Gospels. There is evidence, too, that the following 
Kpistles of Paul were known to them: Romans, First and 
Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
Colossians, which practically means that they knew First 
and Second Thessalonians and Philemon as well. In 
addition to these well-known writings, afterwards accepted 
everywhere, the Valentinians also used the Gospel of Peter. 
A former Valentinian Cassian was the founder of the 
Docetic sect, in which this Gospel was used. It is probable, 
therefore, that the Gospel was written by an oriental 
Valentinian at Syrian Antioch about the middle of the 
second century. The Acts of John and the Acts of Peter, 
too, belonged to this sect, Leucius their author being a 
member of the Asiatic branch of the Valentinians. These 
apostles are represented as drawing on their own recol- 
lections of Jesus, and the author thus gets a free hand to 
introduce what he will. Zahn has found traces of the use 
of the Apocalypse, Acts, First and Second Peter, and 
Hebrews in Valentinian works of this period,! from which 
it would appear that their New Testament was like that of 
other Christians. 

The vague references to sacred writings of the New Dis- 
pensation in Justin Martyr have occupied the closest 
attention of scholars of the highest calibre during the last 
generation or so. He refers in a well-known passage 2 to 
the ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων as read in public service, 
and from another place one learns that the name popularly 
given to these recollections or memoirs was EvayyeAra.? Τό 
is notorious that Justin’s method of citation is unsatis- 
factory from the point of view of the modern critic, and the 
question what Gospels were known to him has been hotly 
debated. There is now practical certainty that he used 
Matthew, Luke, and John, and the reference to the recol- 


1 Forschungen, vi. pp. 197 ff. ; Gesch. des neut. Kanons, i. pp. 754-73, 787 ; 
ii, pp. 853-55. 
2 Apol. i. 67. 3 Apol. i, 66. 


168 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


lections of the Apostle Peter is best explained as a reference 
to St. Mark’s Gospel. There is also much evangelic material 
in the works of Justin, which finds no place in our Gospels, 
but we have no warrant for the supposition that any but 
our four Gospels were used in the public services of the 
Church in general in his time. Indeed, the Gospel text 
was subjected to such free handling in the earliest period 
that it would not be at all amiss to argue that the extra 
material found in such early writers as Justin and Clement 
of Alexandria was all to be found in some copy or other of 
the fourfold Gospel. Justin knows the Apocalypse as a 
prophetic work by the Apostle John.1. Knowledge of the 
following further books is evident from his writings: Acts, 
First Peter, Romans, First Corinthians, Galatians, Ephes- 
ians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians, Hebrews, and the 
Didache. 


1 Dial. c. Tryph., 81,3: καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀνήρ τις, ᾧ ὄνομα ᾿Ιωαννης, eis τῶν 
ἀποστόλων τοῦ χριστοῦ, ἐν ἀποκαλύψει γενομένῃ αὐτῷ χίλια ἔτη ποιήσειν ἐν 
“Ιερουσαλὴμ τοὺς τῷ ἡμετέρῳ χριστῳ πιστεύσαντας προεφήτευσεν. 


1.) EARLIEST PERIOD FOR EXTENSIVE QUOTATION 169 


CHAPTER III 


THE EARLIEST PERIOD FOR EXTENSIVE QUOTA- 
TION (170-220): THE EARLIEST VERSIONS 


THERE is a feeling of intense gratification for the investi- 
gator on leaving the dim uncertainty of the earliest period 
with its fragmentary and poorly preserved literature, and 
emerging into the clearer light of the period of Tatian, 
Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian. At the beginning of the 
period the Diatessaron of Tatian was compiled. It is true 
that we have not the exact text of the Diatessaron, but we 
are tolerably well informed as to its precise contents. It 
was an effort, laudable enough in its way, though quite 
alien to the spirit of twentieth-century investigation, to 
combine into one whole out of our four Gospels one narra- 
tive, which should at once avoid overlapping, and yet 
should preserve everything valuable in these Gospels. It 
was probably because of the inconvenience of having to 
consult four rolls of the Gospels that one large roll of this 
description was made. Tatian’s mosaic was most skilfully 
made, and was appropriately begun by the philosophic 
passage which opens the fourth Gospel. After this begin- 
ning he uses now one, now another Gospel, and builds up 
a more or less harmonious narrative. 

That such a work was compiled in Rome about 170 is 
a striking testimony to the position of the four Gospels 
among Christians of the time. Not only does it prove the 
canonicity of our four: it at the same time proves, by its 
non-use of others, that our four, and only our four, were 
used in public services in the Church at large. It is true 
that Tatian was an Encratite, but in this matter of editing 


170 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


there is no reason to suppose that his attitude would be 
distasteful to the majority of Christian believers. How 
widely the compilation was employed we cannot now say. 
There is something to be said for Von Soden’s view that its 
use was practically universal, but it was in the Assyrian 
Church alone, to which Tatian belonged, that it became 
in a sense the official Gospel of the Church, and reigned 
as such for over two centuries, till episcopal authority 
displaced it by what we know as the Peshitta. 

It is in Irenaeus, a native of Asia Minor, but Bishop of 
Lyons (circa 180-90), that we first find something like a 
whole New Testament freely quoted. The following books 
are quoted, some of them, particularly Acts and the 
Apocalypse, in long extracts: the Four Gospels, Acts, the 
Epistles of Paul (with the exception of Philemon), First 
Peter, First and Second John, and the Apocalypse. If 
we add to these the Epistle of Philemon and Third John, 
we shall probably not be far from the complete New 
Testament as recognised by Irenaeus. His attitude to the 
Gospels is so characteristic that, though it has often been 
quoted, it must be repeated here 3 :— 


δ᾿ ᾿ς, BS , ΄ “A 4 Σ 2 9 Ν 
πειδὴ yap τεσσαρα κλίματα του κοσμου ἐν W εσμεν, Και 


, Ν lA , \ € > , > Ἁ 

τέσσαρα καθολικὰ πνεύματα, κατέσπαρται δὲ ἡ ἐκκλησία ἐπὶ 
~ 3 4 > 

πάσης τῆς γῆς, στύλος τε καὶ στήριγμα3 ἐκκλησίας τὸ εὐαγ- 

fal A > 

γέλιον καὶ πνεῦμα ζωῆς" εἰκὸς τέσσαρας ἔχειν αὐτὴν στύλους, 

πανταχόθεν πνέοντας τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν, καὶ ἀναζωπυροῦντας τοὺς 
» θ ’ 5 on Ν o ε “A ε x ’ Δό 

ἀνθρώπους. ἐξ ὧν φανερὸν ὅτι ὁ τῶν ἁπάντων τεχνίτης Λόγος, 

ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβὶμ καὶ συνέχων τὰ πάντα, φανερω- 

a »” 7, 

θεὶς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 

ἀκ \ ΄ 4 \ ε Ν 3 7 5 »“ 

ἑνὶ δὲ πνεύματι συνεχόμενον. καθὼς ὁ Δαβὲδ, αἰτούμενος αὐτοῦ 

κ , CEN pi , ἥν tN A Q > ΄ θ 3 

τὴν παρουσίαν, φησίν: ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβὶμ ἐμφάνηθι. 
Ν > 

καὶ yap τὰ χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα kal Ta πρόσωπα αὐτῶν 

εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ... καὶ τὰ εὐαγ- 

΄ > ΄ ΄ > 4 > ΄ Lae Ἂς \ 

γέλια οὖν τούτοις σύμφωνα, ἐν οἷς ἐγκαθέζεται Χριστός" τὸ μὲν 

“ > 

γὰρ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡγεμονικὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ 

1 Ὶ borrow the translation from Sanday’s Gospels in the Second Century, 

pp. 315 f. The Greek is in part improved from Harvey’s text by Hort, whose 


copy of Harvey is in my possession. 
2 Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15. 3 Ps, Ixxix. 2. 


τπ.] EARLIEST PERIOD FOR EXTENSIVE QUOTATION 171 
ἔνδοξον γενεὰν διηγεῖται λέγων: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ πάντα 
δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν! τὸ δὲ κατὰ 
Λουκᾶν, ἅτε ἱερατικοῦ χαρακτῆρος ὑπάρχον, ἀπὸ τοῦ Ζαχαρίου 


τοῦ ἱερέως θυμιῶντος τῷ θεῷ ἤρξατο.3... Ματθαῖος δὲ τὴν κατὰ 
ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ γέννησιν κηρύττει, λέγων" βίβλος γενέσεως 
Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαυείδ, υἱοῦ “ABpadu.® ... Μᾶρκος δὲ ἀπὸ 


τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἐξ ὕψους ἐπιόντος τοῖς ἀνθρώποις 
τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐποιήσατο λέγων: ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ 
χριστοῦ, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν ᾽Ησαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, κ-τ.λ. 

‘For as there are four quarters of the world in which 
we live, as there are also four universal winds, and as the 
Church is scattered over all the earth, and the Gospel is the 
pillar and base of the Church and the breath of life, it is 
likely that it should have four pillars breathing immortal- 
ity on every side and kindling afresh the life of men. 
Whence it is evident that the Word, the architect of all 
things, who sitteth upon the cherubim and holdeth all 
things together, having been made manifest unto men, 
gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together 
by one Spirit. As David, entreating for His presence, 
saith : Thou that sittest upon the cherubim, show thyself. 
For the cherubim are of fourfold visage, and their visages 
are symbols of the economy of the Son of God. . . . And 
the Gospels therefore agree with them over which pre- 
sideth Jesus Christ. That which is according to John 
declares His generation from the Father sovereign and 
glorious,4 saying thus: In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And 
all things were made by Him, and without Him was not 
anything made. . . . But the Gospel according to Luke, 
as having a sacerdotal character, begins with Zacharias 
the priest offering incense unto God. ... But Matthew 
records his human generation, saying, The Book of the 
Generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of 
Abraham. . . . Mark took his beginning from the pro- 


1 Toh. i, 1-3. 2 Cf. Le. i. 8. 3 Matt. i. 1. 

4 For the benefit of the English reader I ought perhaps to point out that 
ve mee ‘sovereign and glorious’ belong to ‘generation,’ and not to 
‘Father,’ 


172 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


phetic Spirit coming down as it were from on high among 
men. The beginning, he says, of the Gospel according as 
it is written in Esaias the prophet,’ etc.1 


Postea quam surrexit dominus noster a mortuis et in- 
duti sunt superuenientis spiritus sancti uirtutem ex alto,? 
de omnibus adimpleti sunt et habuerunt perfectam agni- 
tionem : exierunt in fines terrae, ea quae a deo nobis bona 
sunt euangelizantes et caelestem pacem hominibus adnun- 
tiantes, qui [read hi?] quidem et omnes pariter et singuli 
eorum habentes euangelium dei.? ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος ἐν τοῖς 
Ἑβραίοις τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν καὶ γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν 
εὐαγγελίου, τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥώμῃ εὐαγγελιζομένων 
καὶ θεμελιούντων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον 
Μᾶρκος ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ 
Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν. καὶ Λουκᾶς 
δὲ ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου τὸ im’ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον 
ἐν βιβλίῳ κατέθετο. ἔπειτα ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, ὁ καὶ 
ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ ἀναπεσὼν * καὶ αὐτὸς ἐξέδωκεν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον 


ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ τὴς ᾿Ασίας διατρίβων. 


‘For after that our Lord rose from the dead and they 
were endowed with the power of the Holy Ghost coming 
upon them from on high, they were fully informed con- 
cerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge: they 
went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the Gospel of 
those good things that God hath given to us and proclaiming 
heavenly peace to men, having indeed both all in equal 
measure and each one singly the Gospel of God. So then 
Matthew among the Jews put forth a written Gospel in 
their own tongue > while Peter and Paul were preaching 
the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church. After their 
decease (or ‘ departure ’), Mark, the disciple and interpreter 
of Peter, himself too has handed down to us in writing the 


1 Iren., Adv. Haer., iii. 11, 8. 2 Cf. Actsi. 8. 

8 Up to this point the Greek of Irenaeus is not extant, and we have to 
depend on the fourth-century Latin version. 

4 Cf. Ioh. xiii, 25, xxi. 20. 

5 This, of course, comes from Papias: cf. Peake’s Critical Introduction to 
the New Testament (in this series), pp. 122, 119 f. 


m.] EARLIEST PERIOD FOR EXTENSIVE QUOTATION 173 


subjects of Peter’s preaching.’ And Luke, the companion 
of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him. 
Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned 
upon His breast, likewise published his Gospel while he 
dwelt at Ephesus in Asia.’ 3 

These passages are interesting in various ways. They 
illustrate, of course, the very uncritical scholarship of the 
early days ; but for our present purpose their chief interest 
is that they show our four Gospels, and these only, in a 
position of unquestioned authority, which had apparently 
persisted for a long period. It is also not without signifi- 
cance that the Gospels appear in our present (the Eastern) 
order, and not in the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, 
Mark), in spite of the fact that Irenaeus himself used what 
we call a Western text. The doctrine of the ‘ inspiration ’ 
of the Gospels is also here adumbrated, and it is not at all 
identical with ‘ verbal inspiration,’ as understood in modern 
times. 

The later contemporary of Irenaeus, Clement of Alex- 
andria, the greatest pundit of the Eastern Church, though 
inferior in biblical knowledge to his successor Origen, 
distinguishes clearly between canonical and uncanonical 
Gospels. For instance, in quoting a saying from an un- 
canonical Gospel, he says: ‘ We do not find this saying in 
the four Gospels that have been handed down to us, but 
in that according to the Egyptians.’ ὃ 

Tertullian (flor. 197-220), presbyter of Carthage, but at 
one time resident in Rome, who wrote both in Greek and 
Latin, but mainly in the latter.Janguage, a man of real 
learning and the founder of Latin Christian theological 
terminology, goes farther even than Clement. For, while 
Clement is given to quoting widely from all ancient Greek 
literature, sacred and profane, and makes considerable use 
of ‘Gospels’ not now in our Bible, Tertullian confines 
himself rigidly to our four Gospels, which he quotes largely, 


1 This, of course, comes from Papias: cf. Peake’s Critical Introduction to 
the New Testament (in this series), pp. 122, 119 f. 

2 Tren. ili. 1, 1. 

3 Stromateis, iii. 13; cf. Sanday, Gospels in Second Century, p. 317. 


174 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


and in all things his attitude is practically identical with 
that of the older-fashioned Christian student of to-day. 
He bases the authority of these four Gospels on the fact 
that they came from actual Apostles of the Master, or from 
those in close contact with such. His order, also, is signifi- 
cant, being the ordinary Western one, with the two Apostles 
first. 

Finally, Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea (obit circa 
255), the greatest biblical scholar who ever lived, is of the 
same attitude. He speaks of the ‘four Gospels, which 
alone are undisputed in the Church of God under heaven’ 
(τῶν τεσσάρων εὐαγγελίων, ἃ Kai μόνα ἀναντίρρητά ἐστιν ἐν 
τῇ ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ. He then gives 
them in the order which is ours and that of Irenaeus, etc. 

With regard to New Testament books other than the 
Gospels, we have seen above how far Irenaeus quotes these. 
Tertullian is just as comprehensive. He has nothing from 
the short epistle to Philemon, but all the other Pauline 
epistles are well represented. He is acquainted also with 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, but as the work of Barnabas. 
The use of Acts, First Peter, First John, and the Apocalypse 
is also abundant. Nor is there any less certainty that to 
him Jude was known and canonical.? Origen’s canon 
has been preserved to us in his own words by Eusebius. 
He recognises epistles of Paul addressed by him to the 
churches he founded, also First Peter as the incontested 
work of that apostle (μίαν ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην), and 
the possibility of the genuineness of Second Peter also: 
‘for it is disputed’ (ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν: ἀμφιβάλλεται 
γάρ). In addition to the Gospel by John, ‘ who leaned 
on the breast of Jesus,’ he recognises the Apocalypse as 
by the same author. The genuineness of First John is 
also affirmed, and the possibility of the genuineness of the 


1 Origen, Comm. on Matt., Book 1., quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Hecl., vi. 
4 


, 4. 
2 The classic work on Tertullian’s use of the New Testament is Hermann 
Rénsch’s Das Neue Testament Tertullians (Leipzig, 1871). A new edition 
will be required when the Vienna edition of Tertullian is complete, and the 
collations of MSS. used for it have been revised. 
3 Hist. Lcel., vi. 25, 7 ff. 


m1.) EARLIEST PERIOD FOR EXTENSIVE QUOTATION 175 


Second and Third: ‘for not all accept their genuineness ’ 
(ἐπεὶ οὐ πάντες φασὶν γνησίους εἶναι ταύτας). His words 
with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews have often 
been quoted by later writers. ‘It has not the usual 
style of the apostle whose name it bears,’ he says; ‘for 
Paul was rough in his style, but the Greek of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews is very good. The thoughts of the Epistle 
are not inferior to those of the accepted apostolic writings. 
His verdict is that the thoughts are those of the Apostle, 
but the phraseology that of a pupil writing down his 
master’s sayings. Who this pupil was, God alone knows. 
Clement, Bishop of Rome, and Luke have been suggested 
by previous writers.’ The absence of the Acts of the 
Apostles from this enumeration is merely due to the fact 
that Eusebius is making extracts from Origen, and not 
giving us all his words. No authority is known to have 
accepted Luke’s Gospel without also accepting its second 
volume, the Acts, except Marcion and his kindred. 

We have thus got authoritative opinions from the four 
regions of Italy, Gaul, Africa, and Egypt as to New Testa- 
ment books accepted in these countries. From this 
information we may conclude with certainty that through- 
out the Catholic Church about the end of the second 
century the following books were everywhere accepted as 
canonical, and on a level with the Old Testament :— 


Gospel according to Matthew. 

33 39 39 Mark. 

2 ᾽ » Luke. 

39 3) 39 John. 
Acts of the Apostles. 
Ten (Eleven) Epistles of St. Paul, addressed to churches.! 
Apocalypse. 

First John. 
First Peter. 


The position of other books was, as we have seen, less 
secure, but there can be little doubt that Second and Third 


1 Philemon is, of course, included here. 


176 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


John were generally attached to First John, if only because 
they were too short to circulate by themselves; also that 
the Epistle to Philemon, as a kind of companion to the 
Epistle to the Colossians, was accepted. The Pastoral 
Epistles, too, were specifically excluded only by the Mar- 
cionites. ‘The Epistle of Jude seems to have been accepted 
everywhere: so we conclude both from direct references, 
and also because no doubts about it have survived. There 
remain, therefore, only James and Second Peter, about 
which no sort of unanimity had been reached. 

Testimony as to the usage of the period about 200 comes 
to us also from another quarter, namely, that of the early 
translations. The early history of these has been sketched, 
as far as it can be, in the first part of our volume. With 
regard to the Latin considerable uncertainty rules, but it 
would be generally admitted by critics that already about 
the middle of the second century all the books in the 
vertically arranged list on page 175 had been translated 
into Latin. A study of Tertullian, as we have seen, clearly 
shows that already in his time there were Latin trans- 
lations of biblical books in existence, and that they had 
then a considerable history behind them. Whether they 
were produced in Italy or not, they seem in the first instance 
to have been much more used in Africa, because Greek was 
only known to the few in that country. We may take it 
that all the books mentioned above as being cited in 
Tertullian existed by his time in one or more Latin trans- 
lations. Now, it is not impossible that non-canonical 
books had even thus early been translated into Latin. 
It is quite certain, for instance, that both the Epistle of 
Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas had been trans- 
lated into Latin before the year 300. But it is much more 
natural to suppose that if a book had been translated as 
early as the second century, it was because of its import- 
ance and recognised authority and the necessity that it 
should be accessible to the uncultured as well as to the 
cultured. Our existing forms of the Old-Latin version or 
versions of course bear no date. They represent various 


m.] EARLIEST PERIOD FOR EXTENSIVE QUOTATION 177 


fragments, of various date and of various strata of the 
version, and it will not be for some time yet that we shall 
be able to say that such and such a form dates from such 
and such a quarter of a century, and was produced in such 
and such place. So much progress has already been 
made, however, in the last generation, that hopes may be 
entertained that a real history of the Latin versions and 
revisions may yet be written. It is not unfair, perhaps, 
in the circumstances to reason back from Cyprian and 
Novatian (circa 250) to what was the state of affairs a 
generation or a generation and a half earlier. In these 
writers, particularly in Cyprian, of whose works much 
more has survived, we find the following books quoted in 
Latin as authoritative: the Four Gospels, Acts, thirteen 
Pauline Epistles, First Peter, First John,1 and the Apoca- 
lypse. Novatian, like Tertullian, refers to Hebrews as 
the work of Barnabas. ‘Till the fourth century these two 
authors alone in the West make any reference to that 
Epistle. Our list is therefore identical with that arrived 
at from a study of the Fathers of that period. 

The only other translation belonging for certain to this 
early date is that of the Syriac, and we can speak only of 
the Gospels. Tatian’s Greek Diatessaron, translated by 
himself into Syriac about the year 170, is the only form 
of the Gospels which had wide vogue in the Assyrian 
Church at this period. But not later than 200, it would 
appear, and some think even earlier than the Diatessaron, 
the four ‘Separated Gospels’ were translated into the 
same language. In both cases it is our four canonical 
Gospels, and no others, that are used. It is highly probable 
that Tatian also translated a Western text of the Epistles 
of St. Paul for the use of the Assyrian Church. 

The Canon which we know was then for most of its books 
already settled before the middle of the third century, 
and, we might say, probably seventy-five years before that 
even. 


1 Second John is quoted by an African contemporary of Cyprian, and 
carries with it Third John. 


M 


178 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cH. 


CHAPTER IV 
BOOKS OF TEMPORARY AND LOCAL CANONICITY 


OnE of the most interesting parts of this subject is that of 
books which had canonicity, or something very like it, in 
a particular church for a particular period, but were after- 
wards dropped. This seems the best point at which to 
consider such, because it was of course in the early period 
that these books were most numerous. With the lapse 
of time, the greater interchange of opinion between churches 
and the greater centralisation, which went on pari passu 
with the dismemberment of the great Roman Empire, and 
the ecclesiastical friendship between its halves, the state 
of uniformity was reached which we see to-day. 

It is not of course possible for us to give a complete 
account of all the works treated at any time as canonical 
in any part of the Roman Empire. All that we can do 
is to collect the scattered notices that have survived on 
this subject, and these shall be taken book by book. 

The TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES (Διδαχὴ τῶν 
δώδεκα ἀποστόλων), compiled from a Jewish work called 
The Two Ways and certain biblical books, was written 
probably early in the second century.! The original work, 
The Two Ways, seems to have been even more widely used 
in Christian circles than the longer work. It professes to 
record what the Apostles taught to the Gentiles, and alike 
its brevity and its consonance with the general voice of 
apostolic tradition brought it considerable esteem in early 
times. The Didache is used both by Clement of Alex- 


1 Compare the classical article ‘ Didache,’ by Professor Bartlet, in the 
extra volume of Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible; on the considerable use 
of the New Testament (Paul, Matthew, Luke, John) made in it, see the 
Dean of Wells in the Journal of Theolugical Studies, vol. xiii. (1911-12), pp. 
339-56, and cf. Sanday, Jnspiration, p. 301. 


Iv.] BOOKS OF TEMPORARY AND LOCAL CANONICITY 179 


andria and by Origen as Holy Scripture, and during the 
following century there is clear evidence that in Egypt, 
and there only, it continued to be so used. But there is 
evidence of its existence elsewhere also. In Syrian Antioch 
it was employed in the composition of the Apostolic Con- 
stitutions (third or fourth century). In recent times a 
Latin translation has turned up, but canonical use either 
in Syria or in Latin-speaking countries is improbable. 
Certain of the Greek lists recognise it in various positions, 
in the fourth century and later. 

The EpistLE OF ΒΑΒΝΑΒΑΒ, so-called, had in Egypt 
something like a canonical position. Clement of Alex- 
andria, in his Hypotyposes, or commentary on the Catholic 
Epistles, of which only fragments have survived, com- 
mented on it. Origen calls it ‘ catholic,’ a term which he 
elsewhere applies to ‘ First Peter’ and ‘ First John,’ and 
which for practical purposes may be identified with ‘canon- 
ical.’ At a later date it was ejected: yet it remains in ἐξ. 

The LETTER OF CLEMENT, sent from Rome about 96 4.b:, 
as from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, was 
highly and widely esteemed. In the only two Greek MSS. 
in which the epistle is preserved, the so-called Alexandrian 
MS. of the British Museum (of the fifth century) and the 
Jerusalem MS. (of the eleventh century), it is found com- 
bined with another document bearing the title of the Second 
Letter of Clement. But in the MS. of the Latin translation, 
in two MSS. of two separate Coptic translations, and in 
the MS. of the Syriac translation, it stands by itself.1 
This proves abundantly that there were also Greek MSS. 
in which it stood alone. We know that First Clement 
was read in public service at Corinth about 170. Irenaeus, 
Clement,” and Origen all testify to its value and make use 
of it. Other Egyptian writers, of the fourth and fifth 
centuries, show the same attitude. It was not, however, 
commented on by Clement of Aiexandria in his Hypotyposes, 
highly as he esteemed it. As the writing of a sub-apostle, 


1 By this is meant merely ‘without Second Clement.’ 
2 Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 105) calls it ‘a writing of the apostle 
Clement.’ 


180 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


it was not held in the same esteem as that of the Apostle 
Barnabas. It does not appear that either of the two had 
any real canonical position in the West. 

SECOND CLEMENT, which has nothing really to do with 
Clement of Rome, and may itself be of Egyptian origin,! is a 
homily, not a letter, probably written about the middle of 
the second century. Itis, as we have said, found only in two 
Greek biblical MSS. in conjunction with First Clement, 
and it has no sort of authority to compare with the genuine 
Clement. It was rarely read, only here and there, and 
only in the East. The West has no knowledge of it. 

The SHEPHERD OF HeERmas is used as Holy Scripture by 
Irenaeus, Tertullian (before his conversion to Montanism), 
and Clement of Alexandria, which is the more remarkable, 
seeing that it is, perhaps, of all writings regarded as biblical 
the latest to be composed. But immediately after this 
time its authority was severely canvassed in the great 
churches of Rome and Carthage, and its summary rejection 
followed. The Muratorian Canon reflects the esteem in 
which the work was held at the time that list was compiled. 
One Roman contemporary of Cyprian cites it as ‘ divina 
scriptura,’ and another speaks of it as a recognised book 
of teaching. Knowledge of it appears as late as the Gallic 
fifth-century Christian versifier, Commodian. 

The APOCALYPSE OF PETER, so-called, was commented on 
by Clement in his Hypotyposes, and seems to have been 
widely used, especially in the East. In the Claromontane 
list, as well as various lists of undoubted oriental origin, 
it is to be found in a subordinate position, being sometimes 
mentioned last of all. The Church historian Sozomen tells 
us that about 430 it was read on Easter Eve in certain 
churches of Palestine. No certain use of it in the West 
was known to Zahn eight years ago, but a brilliant dis- 
covery of the young Benedictine, Dom André Wilmart, has 
proved that it was known there too. In a Latin tractate 
on The Ten Virgins, belonging probably to the end of the 
third century, which he has published with introduction and 

1 Bartlet in Preuschen’s Zeitschr. 7. n.t. Wiss. vii. (1906), pp. 128 ff. 


Iv.] BOOKS OF TEMPORARY AND LOCAL CANONICITY 181 


notes,! the following words occur : ‘ Ostiwm clausum flumen 
igneum est quo impii regno dei arcebuntur, ut apud Dani- 
helum et apud Petrum—in Apocalypsi eius—scriptum est.’ 

The Acts of Pau. This orthodox work, which has come 
down to us incomplete in a Coptic translation,? includes 
the well-known Acts of Paul and Thecla, as well as a sup- 
positious correspondence between the Apostle and the 
church of Corinth, both of which parts circulated later also 
independently. The complete work was compiled out of 
the canonical Acts and knowledge of localities in Asia 
Minor by a well-meaning presbyter of the province of 
Asia, in the middle of the second century, who on con- 
fessing his authorship was deposed from his office. Origen 
certainly, and Clement of Alexandria probably, have cited 
this work with respect, and it is found in various oriental 
lists. It seems to have been esteemed all over the Church. 
The so-called Third Epistle to the Corinthians had full 
canonicity among the Syrians of the fourth century, and 
is commented on by Ephraim. In the West the Acts of 
Paul does not seem ever to have been canonical, but the 
work has nevertheless been used by Hippolytus (in the 
first half of the third century) and by ‘ Ambrosiaster’ (in 
the second half of the fourth century), both Roman writers. 
An opinion contrary to the usual favourable one is, how- 
ever, expressed by Pseudo-Cyprian De Rebaptismate, a work 
of uncertain date and provenance.® 

Epiphanius (about 380) tells that here and there PsEUDO- 
CLEMENT De Virginitate was read in church services.® 

This concludes the list of attested works which were 
either canonical or next thing to it. 


1 From the Epinal MS. 68 (formerly of Moyeumoutier, and earlier still 
of Murbach, in Elsass) of the eighth century ; Bulletin d’archéologie et de 
littérature chrétiennes, vol. i. (1911), p. 5 of the tirage ἃ part, which I owe to 
the author’s courtesy. 

2 Cf. Dr. M. R. James in the Journal of Theological Studies, xii. (1910-11), 
pp. 41, 48. 

3 Ed. C. Schmidt, Ausg. 1 (Leipzig, 1904), Ausg. 2 (Leipzig, 1905). 

4See Zahn, Grundriss, p. 26, for Hippolytus, and Schmidt, op. cit., 
ΓΕ 2, p. 157, for ‘Ambrosiaster’: cf. also Wilmart, Rev. Bénéd. 1910, 
402 ff. 

5 Zahn, op. cit., p. 26, n. 19. 

8 Haer, xxx. 15, cited by Leipoldt, Gesch. des newt. Canons, i. p. 250. 


182 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


CHAPTER V 
FROM ORIGEN TO CHRYSOSTOM IN THE EAST 


ORIGEN (185 [186]-255 [254]) was a native of Alexandria, 
and successor of Clement in the headship of the catechetical 
school there. He worked in that capacity from 203 to 
215 (216) with an enthusiasm and a devotion which are 
made clear to us by the voluminous writings which, with- 
out this period spent in preparation and teaching, would 
never have seen the light. He had travelled extensively, 
having visited Rome, Athens, Syria, Cappadocia, and 
Arabia. Everywhere he made himself acquainted with the 
biblical literature in use, and acquired a knowledge of all 
the existing types of text. Much of his later life was spent 
at Caesarea in Palestine, where his collection of rolls was 
preserved after his death. 

He had thus unexampled facilities for the acquirement of 
a knowledge of what works were canonical in every part of 
the Roman Empire. We do not find, however, that he 
himself caused any change to be made, and this is the best 
proof that in his time the question was already universally 
settled with regard to the majority of New Testament 
writings. It was in the directions of text and interpretation 
that his real life’s work was performed. But he divides 
the ‘ books of the church’ (βιβλία ἐκκλησιαστικά) into those 
‘recognised everywhere’ (ὁμολογούμενα 1), and such as are 
in certain churches disputed. Amongst the ὁμολογούμενα 
he gives the four Gospels, thirteen letters of Paul, First 
Peter, First John, Acts, and the Apocalypse. The Apoca- 
lypse was to him also the last book in the New Testament. 


1 Passages in Zahn, Grundr., p. 42, n. 3, 


v.] FROM ORIGEN TO CHRYSOSTOM IN THE EAST 183 


The disputed works according to him were Hebrews 
(which he himself, especially in his earlier works, cites as 
Pauline and canonical) ; Second Peter (which he himself, 
if we may trust the Latin translations of his commentaries, 
regarded as genuine and as Holy Scripture) ; Second and 
Third John (here he expresses real doubts as to the genuine- 
ness) ; James (often cited by him,! but its want of general 
recognition is admitted); Jude (nearly always cited as 
Holy Scripture and highly valued, but he once mentions 
that doubts were entertained about it); the Letter of 
Barnabas (on a level with the other Catholic Epistles, and 
the adjective is definitely applied to it) ; 2. the Shepherd of 
Hermas (treated by him as Scripture, but without silence as 
to the doubts which had been raised about its canonicity) ; 
the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (for Origen personally, 
as for the church of Alexandria, canonical, but not received 
everywhere). The Gospel according to the Hebrews, the 
only Gospel of the Jewish Christian communities, is for 
him a disputed work in the Church as a whole. 

The earliest New Testament in the Assyrian Church was 
much smaller than that accepted by Origen, containing as 
it did only ‘the Gospel,’ the Epistles of Paul, and Acts. 
The explanation of this is probably, as we have hinted 
already, the fact that the Canon came from Tatian, who 
introduced (about 172) probably only those books which 
were commonly accepted in the church of Rome. In this 
enumeration ‘the Gospel’ means Tatian’s Diatessaron. 
The fourth-century Syriac writers, like Aphraates and 
Ephraim, confine their quotations to the books named. 
There are certain peculiarities about the collection of 
Pauline Epistles used by them which makes it probable 
that some development had occurred between Tatian’s 
time and the fourth century. At the latter period Hebrews 
was recognised as Pauline, and in this fact one may see 
Alexandrian influence. Also the apocryphal Third Epistle 


1 He is in fact the earliest writer to cite this Epistle, which I believe to be 
an Egyptian product of the second century. 
2 Compare last chapter, p. 179. 


184 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


to the Corinthians was recognised, and Philemon, as short 
and unimportant, appears to have been omitted! The 
order of the Pauline Epistles in Marcion and the Syriac 
Canon, printed as Document O (2), is compared with that 
in Ephraim (ft 373) by Zahn 3 as follows 3 : 


MARCION EPHRAIM Syriac Canon (ca. 400) 

Gal. Gal. Gal. 

1 Cor. 1 Cor. 1 Cor. 

2 Cor. 2 Cor. 2 Cor. 
3 Cor. 

Rom. Rom. Rom. 
Hebr. Hebr. 

1 Thess 

2 Thess 

Laod. Eph. Col. 

Col. Phil. Eph. 

Phil. Col. Phil. 
1 Thess. 1 Thess. 
2 Thess. 2 Thess. 
1 Yim. Lim, 
2 Tim. 2. Tim; 
Tit. Tit. 

Philem. Philem. 


The resemblances and differences between these lists are 
alike significant, and represent various strata in canonisa- 
tion. There can be no doubt that the order of the Epistles 
at the beginning is ultimately due to Marcion. ‘The tradi- 
tion of the Assyrian Church was that they had got them 
from Rome, and their textual character, which shows 
affinities with the Western text in the geographical sense, 


1 But we learn from Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jerome 
that the genuineness of the epistle was seriously questioned by some; the 
Assyrian Church may have been among these. Zahn conjectures, perhaps 
rightly, that Tatian himself rejected it (G@rundr., pp. 51 f.). 

2 Grundr., p. 49. 

3 I venture to disagree from Zahn, however, in my view as to the original 
text of the canon. 


v.] FROM ORIGEN TO CHRYSOSTOM IN THE EAST 185 


where it disagrees with the Peshitta, shows that this is 
true. No doubt Tatian was the intermediary.! 

This state of matters lasted until the period of 
Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa from 411 to 435, who decided 
to provide the Assyrian Church with a New Testament up 
to date in text and contents. He therefore adopted the 
Canon current in Antioch and Antiochian circles at the 
time, and had the Old-Syriac translation of the separated 
Gospels, which had had only a limited vogue, and of the 
Epistles and Acts, revised textually 2 in accordance with 
the New Antiochian type of text. He also caused the 
Antiochian text of James, First Peter, and First John to 
be translated into Syriac, and thus was constituted his 
New Testament of twenty-two books. It was not till the 
beginning of the sixth century that the remaining five 
were translated by order of Philoxenus, and the Syriac 
New Testament thus made identical with our own in 
contents.® 

If we pass from the Euphrates country to Syria, we find 
there active in our period Lucian and Eusebius. Lucian 
was born in Samosata in Syria and trained at Edessa. He 
afterwards became priest in Antioch and founded a school : 
he was martyred at Nicomedia, 7th January 312. His life’s 
work was a revised text of the Old and New Testaments. 
His recension of the New Testament spread from Antioch 
to Constantinople, and is probably the parent of the great 
‘bulk of our Greek MSS. The old Antiochian Canon had 
included the Apocalypse and, apparently, Second Peter. 
Under the influence of Lucian and his school the Antioch 
Canon of the fourth century, on which, as we have seen, 
the Peshitta Syriac was based, excluded the Apocalypse 
and Second Peter, Second and Third John, and Jude. 
This is the Canon which Constantinople, the daughter of 
Antioch in the ecclesiastical sense, recognised, as we find 


11 would respectfully associate myself with the convincing argument of 
Zahn, Grundr., pp. 50 f. 

2 Of course Third Corinthians was ejected, and Philemon included, if not 
already present. 

3 See above, p. 61. 


186 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


from the writings of Chrysostom, Metropolitan of Con- 
stantinople about 400, and others. 

Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 265-339 [340]) was the inheritor 
of the library and of the traditions of Origen, through his 
adopted father Pamphilus the Martyr. Following Origen, 
he sought to ascertain the usages of all churches with 
regard to the New Testament books. Those recognised 
by him (that is by the churches as a whole), on the basis 
of this wide knowledge, are the four Gospels, Acts, the 
Epistles of Paul, First John, First Peter, and the Apoca- 
lypse.t Among those that are disputed, but known to the 
majority, are the so-called Epistle of James, the Epistles 
of Jude, Second Peter, and the so-called Second and Third 
Epistles of John, ‘ whether they are the work of the evan- 
gelist, or of another man of the same name.’ Amongst the 
disputed but spurious works are the Acts of Paul, the so- 
called Shepherd [of Hermas] and the Apocalypse of Peter, 
and, in addition, the Epistle which passes under the name 
of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings (sic) of the 
Apostles ; to these, perhaps, the Apocalypse ought to be 
added, as some reject it, while others think it ought to be 
accepted. Some would further add the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews, in which Hebrew Christians especially 
delight. These, he says, would be all among the disputed 
writings. ‘Then he enumerates some ‘heretical’ writings 
that are outwith consideration altogether: the Gospels of 
Peter, Thomas, Matthias, etc., the Acts of Andrew, John, 
and the rest of the Apostles. This is the principal declara- 
tion of Eusebius on the subject of the Canon, with which 
occasional remarks of his do not in all points tally; but 
the significance of this fact is that he is not giving his 
private view, but a kind of synoptic view of the attitude 
of the whole Church, so far as he knows it. His own 
preference, for instance, was distinctly for the ejection of 
the Apocalypse. In this respect, and in this alone, then, 
is there a real difference between Eusebius’ New Testament 
and ours. He is followed by Cyril of Jerusalem, etc. 


1 Hist. Eccl., iii. 25, 1 ff. 


v.] FROM ORIGEN TO CHRYSOSTOM IN THE EAST 187 


Let us turn to Egypt again. There is some reason to 
suppose that the Sahidic version of the New Testament 
was made as early as the third century.! If, therefore, 
we could say what the translation in its original form 
contained, we should be justified in inferring that those 
and those alone were the canonical books in the Greek- 
speaking churches of Egypt at that time. But, though 
every book in our New Testament is represented in some 
Sahidic fragment or other, these fragments are of such 
various date that it is impossible to argue as to the contents 
of the original Sahidic canon. It is probable that it 
contained the Apocalypse.? 

The most interesting fourth-century Egyptian document 
with reference to the Canon is the Easter Letter of Athan- 
asius, written in 367.3 The purpose Athanasius had in 
compiling the list of biblical books was to exclude the large 
number of apocryphal books, which were very much read, 
just as they had been to a great extent written, by Egyptian 
Christians. Athanasius’ significance for us is that he ts 
the earliest to lay down the twenty-seven books of our New 
Testament as alone canonical. There is no hesitation, for 
instance, about either Second Peter or the Apocalypse. 
Amongst those that may be read by catechumens he gives 
‘the so-called Teaching of the Apostles and the Shepherd,’ 
and these alone of books anywhere associated with the 
New Testament. This last part seems to have been a 
concession to conservatism, and the distinction between 
books to be read by catechumens and those to be read in 
the public regular services of the church of Alexandria, 
was one that was sure to break down. These catechumens’ 
books fell into disuse, but the other canon has attained 
world-wide sway. 

At this point one may sum up the after-history of the 
Canon in the Eastern Church, though the title of the 
chapter does not take us beyond Chrysostom. ‘Theodore 


1 But personally I should prefer to agree with Leipoldt, Gesch. d. newt, 
Canons, i. p. 81, who gives the first half of the fourth century. 

2 Leipoldt, op. cit., i. p. 81, against Westcott, Canon, ed. 7, p. 376. 

8 See the Appendix, Document EH. 


188 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


of Mopsuestia (340[?]-428), one of the most learned and 
voluminous writers of the Antiochian school, took a some- 
what independent line in canonical matters. As an Anti- 
ochian he naturally rejected the Apocalypse, but in addition 
he excluded all the Catholic Epistles. He arranged, too, 
the Epistles of St. Paul in the following order: Romans, 
First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Hebrews, Ephes- 
ians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, First and Second 
Thessalonians, and then the Pastorals and Philemon. His 
influence in matters of canon, as in other ways, is to be 
traced among his great admirers, the Nestorian Assyrian 
Church. There is evidence that, following his lead, some 
of them, at least, rejected all the Catholic Epistles. Again, 
in Junilius, the African Latin author of the sixth century, 
who reports somewhat freely the lectures delivered by 
Paul of Nisibis at Constantinople about 545, we find James 
coupled with the four small Catholic epistles as of secon- 
dary authority, to be clearly distinguished from First 
Peter and First John. 

By the beginning of the sixth century a change must 
have been produced. The Syriac translation made about 
508 of the four smaller Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse 
proves that by then these had come once again into favour 
in Greek-speaking Syrian churches. About the same 
period the attitude of Asia Minor to the Apocalypse also 
appears changed, for at that date Andreas of Caesarea in 
Cappadocia writes a commentary on the Apocalypse as 
an inspired book. About 530 the Jerusalem scholar 
Leontius speaks of the Apocalypse as the last canonical 
book in the New Testament. At this period, then, the 
whole Greek-speaking church seems to have been in line 
with the canon as we know it. Conciliar judgments are 
considered in a later chapter. 


vi. | FROM 250 TO 450 IN THE WEST 189 


CHAPTER VI 
FROM 250 TO 450 IN THE WEST 


So far as we can say, the West appears to have taken a 
line of its own during the very earliest centuries of the 
Church in matters of Canon as in others. It was not till 
towards the middle of the fourth century that the Arian 
controversy brought East and West orthodox Christians 
together. At the beginning of our period we have already 
seen what the canon of Cyprian of Carthage contained. 
We have no reason to suppose that the canon of Rome 
differed materially from that of Cyprian at that time, 
as Africa probably derived her Christianity and everything 
connected with it directly from Italy. We should expect 
Spain to follow Africa, Gaul and Dalmatia to follow Rome, 
and that appears to be what happened. Our object in 
this chapter will be to summarise the attitude displayed 
by Christian authors in the golden age of Latin Christian 
literature towards books which are absent from the canon 
of Cyprian, and are now in our New Testament. As a 
postulate at the beginning of our investigation we may 
state that no book accepted by Cyprian was rejected 
by after ages. 

The books absent from the Cyprianic! canon are: 
(Philemon 5, Hebrews, James, Second Peter, Second 
John, Third John, Jude. Let us take these books in turn, 
and, going down through the leading authors of the period 

1 It is said that Firmicus Maternus (ca. 340), Zeno of Verona (ca. 360- 
880 3), and Commodian (ca. 465) derive their Scripture passages exclusively 
frem Cyprian’s Testimonies. 


2 The absence of Philemon is accidental, and due solely to its shortness 
and its special character. 


190 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


from 250 to 450, endeavour to trace the use and estimate 
the position of these various books, one by one. Our task 
will be in a measure tentative. Only some of the authors 
have yet been edited in a manner satisfying to modern 
requirements, and even when that has been done, one 
cannot always rely on an editor’s knowledge of Scripture, 
or on the accuracy of his index of Scripture passages.} 


THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 


The following authorities pass over Hebrews in silence : 
the African canon (ca. 360), Optatus of Mileue in Numidia 
(370-85), the Acts of the Donatist controversy, Zeno of 
Verona, an African by birth, Foebadius of Agen (οὗ. post 
392). 

Hilary of Poitiers (0b. 366) in his Tract. tn Psalm. 
CXXIX. (written perhaps about 360), § 7, quotes Hebrews i. 
14, and introduces his quotation by the words ‘ maxime 
cum scriptum sit.’ This shows that he regarded the work 
as canonical; but there is no word of Paul’s name. In an 
earlier passage of the same work (in Psalm. CXXIV.§ 4) 
he works in language from Hebr. xii. 22-3 without in any 
way citing the words from their context. Hilary’s attitude 
is that of compromise. He was deeply imbued with 
Eastern learning, and to him Hebrews was a canonical 
book, but he knew the attitude of his Western countrymen 
with regard to it. ‘ Ambrosiaster,’ perhaps Isaac, a con- 
verted Jew (flor. 370-85) of Rome (and Spain ?), uses the 
epistle as canonical, but always as an anonymous work.? 
The attitude of Ambrose of Milan (340-97) is at times the 
same. In the case of Ambrose it must have been due to 
prudence that he sometimes took this attitude ; for, as one 
who derived principally from Greek authors, he must have 
been well acquainted with the other attitude. Other 
writers who quote or appear to quote Hebrews as an 
anonymous work are Rufinus of Aquileia (345-410). 


1 There are errors, for instance, in Hartel’s index to Lucifer of Cagliari. 
2 This fact was first discovered by the present writer; see Study of 
Ambrosiaster, pp. 171 ff., 197. 


VI.] FROM 250 TO 450 IN THE WEST 191 


Augustine’s attitude, which is particularly interesting, 
was first clearly traced by the great Augustine expert, the 
late Dom Odilo Rottmanner of Munich.! In his earliest 
writings (down to 406) he cites the Epistle as Paul’s ; 
in the middle period he wavers between Pauline author- 
ship and anonymity ; in his old age (409-30) he refers to 
it always as anonymous. Everywhere, of course, in his 
writings it is a canonical book. It is never cited in the 
Pseudo-Augustinian Speculum, a work probably not later 
than the beginning of the fifth century, written in Spain 
or North Africa. Isidore of Seville in the seventh century 
is probably referring to the past rather than the present, 
when he says that very many Latins doubt the Pauline 
authorship.” 

On the other side, the following authors cite Hebrews 
as canonical and as the work of St. Paul: Marius Vic- 
torinus of Rome (ca. 360), Lucifer of Cagliari (ob. 371), 
Priscillian of Zaragoza (wrote between 380 and 385), 
Faustinus of Rome (flor. 380-4), Filaster of Brescia (ca. 
383), Pacian of Barcelona ( flor. 360-90), Jerome of Stridon 
(Dalmatia) and Rome (ca. 340-420), Paulinus of Nola (353- 
431), Pelagius of Britain (ca. 350-ca. 430), Cassian of Mar- 
seilles (ca. 360-ca. 435), and Julian of Aeclanum (flor. 420). 


Tue EPISTLE OF JAMES 


The Western Church is absolutely silent about this 
Epistle till the second half of the fourth century. The 
oldest quotation from it is in Hilary of Poitiers (ob. 366), 
the next oldest is in Ambrosiaster*; then follow [the 
‘Damasine’ canon of 382],* Priscillian, Jerome, Augustine, 
Pelagius, Cassian and Paulinus of Nola. The Pseudo- 


1 See his paper in the Revue Bénédictine, xviii. (1901), pp. 257 ff., re- 
printed in Geistesfriichte aus der Klosterzelle (Miinchen, 1908), pp. 84-90, 

2 Etymol. vi. 2, 45. 

3 This was first pointed out by the present writer (Study of Ambrosiaster, 
p. 197) in contradiction of the statement in Zahn, Grundriss, p. 69. 
Sabatier would have kept him right (see his Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae 
Versiones Antiquae .. . | Remis, 1743], tom iii, ad doc.), The Ambrosiaster 
citation did not escape Hort (cf. his posthumous commentary on James 
{London, 1910], p. xxix). 4 See postscript to the Preface. 


192 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


Augustinian Speculum also cites it. The influence of 
Jerome and Augustine was sufficient to secure its un- 
questioned acceptance after their date. 


SECOND PETER 


The earliest citations of this Epistle in Latin are in 
Ambrosiaster,! Priscillian, and Filaster. The African [and 
‘Damasine’] canons give it, and Jerome and Augustine cite 
it abundantly. Pelagius, Cassian, the Pseudo-Augustinian 
Speculum, and others have no hesitation in using it as 
Scripture. After that generation its position is secure. 


SECOND AND THIRD JOHN 


Bishop Aurelius of Cillani (Numidia) cites Second John 
as the work of the Apostle at the Carthaginian Synod of 
256. It is also quoted as such by Lucifer, Ambrosiaster, 
Optatus, Priscillian, and the Pseudo-Augustinian Speculum. 
The (African?) [and ‘Damasine’] canons, Jerome and 
Augustine have it, just as they have all the other Catholic 
Epistles.? 

Third John is recognised by the African canon (with 
hesitation), is alluded to as canonical by Ambrosiaster,* 
[appears in the ‘ Damasine’ canon], but is apparently cited 
nowhere before Jerome and Augustine. Its special con- 
nexion with the circumstances referred to in it explains 
its uselessness for general purposes of quotation. 


THE EPISTLE OF JUDE 


This Epistle was received both in Rome and in Carthage 
about 200, but after that period seems to have fallen into 
disrepute. No African writer between Tertullian and 


1 First pointed out by the present writer (Study of Ambrosiaster, pp. 196 ἢ.) 
in contradiction of Zahn, loc. cit. 

2 The African with hesitation. 

3 The African canon is of course entirely without James and Jude, 

4 First pointed out by the present writer (Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 197) 
in contradiction of Zahn, loc, cit, 


vi.] FROM 250 TO 450 IN THE WEST 193 


Augustine quotes it, and the African canon of 360 passes 
it over. Cassiodorus’ copy of the Antiqua Translatio in 
the middle of the sixth century had all the other books 
in our New Testament except it. However, Lucifer, 
Ambrosiaster, Priscillian, [the ‘Damasine’ canon], Filaster, 
the Pseudo-Augustinian Speculum, Cassian, and later 
writers cite it as Scripture. 


NOTE 
THE EPISTLE TO THE LAODICENES 


Not later than the fourth century a forger, misunderstanding 
the passage Col. iv. 16, composed a (Latin?) epistle as from 
St. Paul to the church at Laodicea. It is a cento from the 
genuine Epistles. A large number of Latin manuscripts of the 
Epistles contain it.) It is first found in the Pseudo-Augustinian 
Speculum, was recognised as genuine, but not canonical, by 
Gregory the Great, and was early translated into English. It 
is recognised by Alfric, Abbot of Cerne (989 a.p.), and finds 
a place in various early Bibles of modern European peoples.? 
It runs thus :— 

I. Paulus apostolus, non ab homine neque per hominem, sed 
per Iesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laudiciae ; gratia uobis 
et pax a deo patre et domino nostro Jesu Christo. gratias ago 
Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod estis permanentes in 
eo et perseuerantes in operibus eius, sperantes promissionem in 
die iudicationis.* neque destituat uos quorundam uaniloquentia 
insinuantium se: sed peto (ut) ne uos auertant a ueritate euan- 
gelii quod a me praedicatur. et nunc deus faciet ut sint qui 
sunt ex me in profectum ueritatis euangelil deseruientes et 
facientes benignitatem operum quae sunt salutis uitae aeternae. 

II. Et nunc sunt palam uincula mea, quae patior in Christo, 
quibus laetor et gaudeo ; et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam, 
quod ipsum factum orationibus uestris administrante sancto 
spiritu siue per uitam siue per mortem. est enim mihi uiuere in 


1 It is edited by Lightfoot, Colossians, pp. 285 ff., and Westcott, Canon 
(ed. 7), pp. 591 ff., to whose editions I am indebted. Harnack also edited 
it in 1905 in Lietzmann’s Kleine Texte (xii.). It is desirable that a complete 
list of MSS. containing it should be made. 

2 See details in Westcott, op. cit., pp. 464 ff. 

3 This is very rare for iudici, 

N 


194 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


Christo et mori gaudium ; et ipsum in uobis faciet misericordia 
sua, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes. 

III. Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentiam mei, ita re- 
tinete et facite in timore dei, et erit uobis uita aeterna; est 
enim deus qui operatur in uobis; et facite sine retractatione 
quaecumque facitis. 

IV. Et quod est optimum, dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et 
praecauete sordidos in lucro. in omnibus sint petitiones uestrae 
palam ante deum, et estote firmi in sensu Christi. et quae 
integra et pudica et iusta et casta et amabilia , facite, et quae 
audistis et accepistis in corde retinete, et erit uobis pax.  salu- 
tate omnes sanctos in osculo sancto. salutant uos omnes sancti. 
gratia domini nostri Jesu Christi cum spiritu uestro. et facite 
legi Colosensibus et Colosensium wobis. 


vu. ] CONCILIAR DELIVERANCES 195 


CHAPTER VII 
CONCILIAR DELIVERANCES 


So far as biblical books were concerned, individual churches 
were permitted to exercise their own discretion in the 
earliest centuries of the Church. That a remarkable agree- 
ment of opinion was produced without any application of 
force is very significant. Something like a fixed canon 
had grown to have all the force of usage, and it was not till 
the second half of the fourth century that, from whatever 
cause or causes, this usage was stereotyped by various 
episcopal pronouncements made applicable to all the 
churches of a province or to the whole Church catholic. 

What is, perhaps, the earliest of all these deliverances 
ἴα that of the Councit or Laopicza in 363 A.D. Bishop 
Westcott, however, in a masterly chapter, has shown that 
the list of Scriptural books attached to certain forms of 
the Canons of the Council of Laodicea is no integral part 
of these canons themselves,! and it must remain open to 
question whether the list is a contemporary appendix, or 
a later accretion. If the latter be the case, then the claim 
of the Council of Laodicea to have made the earliest con- 
ciliar list of Scripture books must be resigned in favour 
of the next council on our list, that of Damasus at Rome 
in 382. [But see below, under document G.] 

Laodicean Canon 11Χ. reads : ὅτι οὐ δεῖ ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς 
λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ 
κανονικὰ τῆς καινῆς καὶ παλαιᾶς διαθήκης. 

ὅσα δεῖ βιβλία ἀναγινώσκεσθαι" παλαιᾶς διαθήκης... τὰ 
δὲ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης" εὐαγγέλια δ΄, κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ 


1 The list is absent from the Latin version by Dionysius Exiguus and from 
three Syriac MSS. in the British Museum (Westcott, ed. 7, p. 549, n. 2). 


196 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


Μᾶρκον, κατὰ Λουκᾶν, κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην. pagers ᾿Αποστόλων. 
᾿Επιστολαὶ Καθολικαὶ ἑπτά" οὕτως᾽ ᾿Ιακώβου a’, Πέτρου a’, 
β΄. Ἰωάννου a’, β΄, γ΄. ᾿Ιούδα α΄. ᾿Επιστολαὶ Παύλου ιδ΄, πρὸς 
Ῥωμαίους α΄. πρὸς Κορινθίους α΄. β΄. πρὸς Γαλάτας α΄. πρὸς 
᾿᾿Εφεσίους α΄. πρὸς Φιλιππησίους α΄. πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς α΄. πρὸς 
Θεσσαλονικεῖς α΄, β΄. πρὸς “Ἑβραίους α΄. πρὸς Τιμόθεον a’, β΄. 
πρὸς Τίτον α΄. πρὸς Φιλήμονα α΄. 

This list is identical with that in the contemporary 
Festal Letter of Athanasius (Document E), except that 
here the Apocalypse is absent. This fact suggests that 
if the list be not contemporary with the Council, it is 
not more than a century later (see chapter v. page 185). 

[In the Damasine Council (or Synod) of 382, held at 
Rome, in which Jerome was a leading spirit, and in 
which a list of Scripture books was promulgated (but see 
Document G), perhaps for the first time, we find exactly 
the same books given (neither more nor less) as in the 
Festal Letter of Athanasius and in our modern Bibles, 
though there are some differences in the order of groups 
and the order of individual writings within the groups. 
The ‘Damasine’ order is Gospels, Pauline Epistles (with 
Hebrews), the Apocalypse, Acts, Canonical Epistles. The 
individual Gospels are given in our order, which, as we have 
seen, goes back at least as far as Irenaeus. There are some 
peculiarities in the order of the Pauline Epistles, and 
amongst the Canonical Epistles the Petrine have the first 
place, as we should expect in the church at Rome. sere 
and Third John are by ‘ alter Iohannes presbyter.’] 

Fifteen years later (397) a Council was held at Carthage, 
at which Augustine was present. This Council also pub- 
lished a list of Scriptural books (Document K). There is 
an interesting difference between this and the ‘Damasine’ 
list, in respect of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In the 
‘Damasine’ list it appears at the end, after Philemon, in 
the ordinary numeration. But in the Carthaginian list, 
* Epistles of Paul the Apostle, 13,’ is followed by ‘ eiusdem 
ad Hebraeos una.’ There was then, even at the end of the 
fourth century, a certain reluctance on the part of the 


vu. | CONCILIAR DELIVERANCES 197 


African churches to recognise that Epistle as Paul’s. The 
three Johannine Epistles are grouped together. 

Both in the ‘Damasine’ and Carthaginian lists the books 
of our New Testament, neither more nor less, are recognised. 
After this double pronouncement of two such centres as 
Rome and Carthage, backed by the scholarship of Jerome 
and Augustine respectively, there could no longer be much 
question of disagreement in the West. We can therefore 
pass over a period of a thousand years, merely remarking 
that the reign of Charlemagne was in all ecclesiastical 
matters an unifying force, and come to the Council of 
Trent. 

The real significance of the Council of Trent for the 
student of the Canon lies in two things. The Scriptures 
are a repository of apostolic and spiritual truth, of which 
one God is author, and a list of these writings is given, 
so that no doubt as to any particular book may arise. The 
list is identical with that of ‘Damasus’ Council,’ save that 
now there is only one John, and the order of groups and 
books is different. In the second place, mention is made 
of a particular version, probably for the first time in the 
history of the Church. ‘The whole books with all their 
parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the 
Catholic church, and as they are contained in the old Vulgate 
Latin edition,’ are to be regarded as ‘ sacri et canonici,’ and 
a curse is invoked on him who does not so regard them. 


198 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. 


CHAPTER VIII 
THE REFORMATION AND LATER 


THRovGHOUT the Middle Ages the Church held to the 
Canon as it had become fixed in the early years of the 
fifth century. It did so because it was the finding of the 
Church. The history of the Middle Ages is the history of 
the gradually attained supremacy of the Church of Rome 
over the whole of the Western Church. As Rome had 
settled views on the Canon by the beginning of the fifth 
century, these, as a matter of course, gradually imposed 
themselves on the entire Church. So great has this 
influence been, that even the Reformed Churches have 
simply retained the New Testament Canon of the Roman 
Catholic Church. The real difference between the Roman 
and other communions consists in the attitude to the 
Canon. ‘To the Roman Catholic the Church is the supreme 
authority, speaking through its Chief Pontiff; Scripture is 
one fountain of doctrine, side by side with the creeds, the 
decrees of councils, and the opinions of the Fathers of the 
Church. Had Scripture played a more important part in 
the Church of Rome, it is possible that the resulting attitude 
of the Reformers would have been different. But, as what 
the Reformers attacked especially was the excessive 
authority attributed to the Church, they had to find the 
seat of authority elsewhere, and, as some one has said, 
‘they substituted for an infallible Church an infallible 
Book.’ There are not wanting signs that in future stress 
will be laid neither on an infallible Church, nor on an 
infallible Book, but on an infallible Christ. 

The changed attitude to Scripture was only part of the 


Vii. | THE REFORMATION AND LATER 199 


great phenomenon known as the Reformation. This is 
not the place, even if the writer were qualified, to give any 
account of the Reformation,! but among the causes which 
operated upon men’s views of Scripture was the recovery 
of the original Greek of the New Testament in the West. 
Many men had so come to hate the evil side of the Church 
of Rome that they despised much in that Church which 
was really good and worthy in itself. The Latin Vulgate 
was despised in comparison with the original Greek, 
probably with the underlying idea that the Church of Rome 
had been guilty of fraud in making so much of the Vulgate. 
But the Church of Rome cannot really be blamed for 
continuing to use the only Bible that her members had been 
able to read for over a thousand years. Hardly any one 
in the West could read Greek before the fall of Constanti- 
nople in 1453. Even a generation after that, Erasmus 
could not find a teacher of the language for a long period, 
and tells us that, so far as Greek was concerned, he was 
‘prorsus αὐτοδίδακτος, * entirely self taught.’ 

It must be remembered that the Greek text published 
by Erasmus in 1516 was not unaccompanied. There was 
a preface, a new Latin translation, and there were many 
notes from that subtle and agile mind. These were in 
Latin, which all understood, and there can be little doubt 
᾿ς that they worked a tremendous effect on the thought of 
the time. The Latin-reading public of that age was influ- 
enced by him somewhat in the same way as the English- 
reading public of our day has been influenced by the 
writings of George Bernard Shaw. They are alike in their 
suggestiveness and in their power to shake people out of 
their ordinary ways of thinking. Erasmus spoke quite 
freely about New Testament writings, denied the Pauline 
authorship of Hebrews, welcomed the Epistle of James to 
its place in the Canon, while thinking it in some respects 


1 The reader who has not already studied the history of the Reformation 
is recommended to begin with Professor M‘Giffert’s volume in the present 
series, and to go on toG. P. Fisher’s The Reformation (London, 1873, and 
often later), and Principal T. M. Lindsay’s two volumes, Histvry of the 
Reformation (Edinburgh, 1906-7). 


200 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


unworthy; and so on. It was the first step in the 
movement for judging Scripture as other ancient books 
are judged. 

Erasmus’ outspokenness was unwelcome to the Church, 
and he became somewhat more reserved as time advanced. 
Views like his were, however, promulgated by other Roman 
Catholics like Cardinal Caietanus and Sixtus Senensis. 
The Council of Trent’s Decree was, in fact, as much aimed 
against teachers of this class as against anybody. 

Nor was the attitude of Luther entirely different. He 
also, as is well known, criticised the Epistle of St. James, 
calling it a ‘straw epistle,’ and suggested—or revived a 
previous suggestion—that the Epistle to the Hebrews was 
the work of Apollos. Erasmus was rather a man of 
intellect, Luther rather a man of heart. Erasmus was 
sometimes misled by his own subtlety; Luther, who was 
rather a poor scholar, was so sound at the heart, so fervid 
in moral conviction, that he exercised influence in quarters 
where the influence of Erasmus was hardly appreciable. 
Luther tested all Scripture in relation to the central 
doctrine of Christianity, that all are sinners and on repent- 
ance and forgiveness are justified by God, this being an 
act of grace with which we have really nothing to do, and 
which we have done nothing to deserve. This doctrine is so 
cardinal and has such unsurpassed power of moving men, 
that it is naturally to be found either in germ or fully 
developed in every New Testament writing. ‘The presence 
of this Divine wisdom, which could never have been 
excogitated by man, is the proof that the Bible is a Divine 
Book. It is the voice of God Himself. It is not in the 
Church, then, which we see to be corrupt, says Luther 
in effect, that we find the seat of authority, but in this 
Book written by men filled with a special inspiration from 
God Himself. 

Thus the Reformed Churches have the same New Testa- 
ment as the Church of Rome, but to them it means much 
more. They have as a whole repudiated the creeds of the 
Church of Rome except the Apostles’. They have little 


Vu. } THE REFORMATION AND LATER 201 


respect for the opinions of the Fathers, and less still for 
the decrees of councils. They have thrown all of these 
overboard, and have staked all on the Scriptures alone. 

Luther first popularised the subjective judgment of 
Scripture, and in accordance with his view of their value 
he relegated Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse 
to the end of his Bible. In his list of books he numbered 
all except these, and a blank line precedes them. We are 
justified in concluding that Luther did not wish to give 
these writings full canonical authority. Of all the New 
Testament writings Luther esteemed the Pauline Epistles, 
St. John’s Gospel, First John, and First Peter most highly. 

William Tindale followed Luther very closely in these 
matters, but Coverdale and later translators were more 
conservative. 

Andrew Bodenstein of Karlstadt, generally known now 
as KarustapT,! was originally a friend of Luther, but 
became alienated from him by theological controversies. 
He was a scholastic, a friend of humanism, and in his later 
life professor of theology at Basle (died 1541). In 1520 
he published a little book in Latin called De Canonicis 
Scripturis, which he followed next year with one in the 
German vernacular entitled What Books are Biblical ? 
These works were written against Rome. He repudiated 
conciliar decisions, and was the first to assert the inde- 
pendent supremacy of Holy Scripture. As a textual critic 
he was much under the influence of Erasmus, and like him 
was influenced by historical considerations. He divided 
New Testament documents into three classes according 
to dignity, but all these are superior to any others. His 
three classes are :— 


(1) Four Gospels and Acts. 

(2) Thirteen undoubted Epistles of Paul; First Peter, 
First John. 

(3) Seven disputed works: James, Second Peter, Second 
and Third John, Jude, Hebrews, the Apocalypse. 


1 See especially Leipoldt, vol. ii. pp. 104-20. Westcott suffers somewhat 
here from inability to go to the fountainhead. 


202 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT [cH. 


The authorship of James is not quite certain. In an implied 
criticism of Luther, which is suppressed in the German 
book, he speaks with respect of the Epistle. The author- 
ship of Second Peter has been disputed without sufficient 
grounds. Second and Third John are not by John the 
Evangelist, but by another John, the Presbyter. Jude is 
not to be objected to because it quotes the Book of Enoch. 
Hebrews is not by Paul. Karlstadt doubts whether the 
Apocalypse should be in the Canon. These little books 
had very little influence over his contemporaries. ‘The 
views expressed by him were mostly a repetition of 
Erasmus. 

Huldreich Zwinewt of Ziirich (1484-1531), the great 
Swiss reformer, was a humanist like Karlstadt, and was 
interested in the New Testament mainly as an historical 
source. Nevertheless, he recognised that the Bible is 
principally a religious book, with occasional errors in 
matter of fact or history. He did not give much attention 
to canonical questions, and on the whole recognised 
equality of value in the New Testament writings. He 
rejected Luther’s view of James, without mentioning 
his name; Hebrews was to him a work of Paul; but he 
rejected the Apocalypse, probably from personal antipathy, 
going so far as to say that it is not a book of the Bible. 

Johannes OECOLAMPADIUS of Basle (1482-1531) received 
all our New Testament books and regarded Hebrews as 
Paul’s, but he recognised that James, Second Peter, 
Second and Third John, Jude, and the Apocalypse are 
inferior to the rest. 

John Catvin of Geneva (f 1564) applies the personal 
test like the others. To him the Church was based on 
Scripture, and is therefore not superior to it. He says 
nothing whatever of Second and Third John and the 
Apocalypse. The value of Hebrews is recognised, but the 
Pauline authorship is denied. He accepts James and 
Jude. Second Peter is not by Peter himself, but is a 
valuable work, written at Peter’s command by one of his 
disciples. 


VIII. ] THE REFORMATION AND LATER 203 


Hugo Grortius, of Leyden (1583-1645), wrote Anno- 
tattones on the New ‘Testament, which illustrate the 
freedom of Arminian criticism. Hebrews is by Luke. 
James is not apostolic, but written by James, the brother 
of the Lord, in the time of Claudius, and is a valuable 
document. Second Peter is not by the apostle Peter, but 
by Symeon, successor of James as head of the congregation 
at Jerusalem. Second and Third John are by the presbyter, 
not by the evangelist. Jude is the work of Judas, head of 
the Jerusalem congregation in the time of Hadrian: the 
clause ‘ brother of James’ is a later interpolation. The 
Apocalypse is the work of the apostle John. Such freedom 
of speculation is rare before the nineteenth century, and 
is a kind of foreshadowing of the riotous criticism of Baur 
and the Tubingen school. 

The ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (1562, 1571) 
are not explicit in regard to the contents of the New 
Testament Canon, but there can be no doubt whatever that 
they receive all our twenty-seven books and no others. 
The lack of explicitness is due not to any desire to leave 
freedom of choice, but merely to the fact that the question 
of the contents of the New Testament was closed. 

The WESTMINSTER CONFESSION (1643) recognised all 
the books of our New Testament as canonical, ‘ given by 
inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.’ 

The NoNcONFORMIST CHURCHES of England have been 
in this matter in entire agreement with the Church of 
England. Amidst much on which difference of opinion 
has been held, it is very gratifying that not only has the 
New Testament Canon been identical, but all the churches 
have used the same version of Scripture, and sung many 
of the same hymns. Here we have strong bases for that 
future union for which most Christians now look. 

The last century has not taken much interest in the 
question of the Canon. The centre of interest has distinctly 
shifted. We see this in various ways. The old doctrine 
of verbal inspiration, which at the start of last century 
was practically universal in Presbyterian and Independent 


204 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


churches, at least, has for the most part given way, under 
criticism, to a much more reasonable view. ‘There has 
been, further, a much greater amount of free criticism of 
documents both inside and outside the Canon, quite irre- 
spective of their canonicity. One might say that there 
has been rather an attempt to level up outside writings, 
like the Book of Enoch, to a canonical level, than to eject | 
books which are already in the Canon. In other words, a 
prominent phase of modern study is to seek rather for 
what is common to New Testament and extra-canonical 
literature, than to bolster up New Testament books at 
the expense of those without. Certain books, also, in the 
New Testament, like Jude and Second and Third John, 
might almost be outside the Canon for all the use that is 
made of them either in public or in private. 

Whether, on the basis of all the free criticism of docu- 
ments in which the last century has indulged, there will 
be any attempt, or any successful attempt, on the part 
of any considerable section of the Church universal to 
reduce the number of books in the Canon, or to add to their 
number, or to do both, it is difficult to say. It seems to 
the present writer that modern conditions of ecclesiastical 
life foredoom such an attempt to failure. The interest in 
Scripture is in some ways perhaps greater than ever it 
was, but it is an historic, an intellectual interest, rather 
than the old passion for searching the Scriptures to get 
guidance for life. For many ministers now the selection 
of a text on which to preach is a mere form, a mere con- 
cession to usage. They have ceased to give Scripture that 
supreme place in literature, to regard it as the fount of 
divine wisdom, as their ancestors did. And yet all the 
criticism that there has been has not disproved the claim 
of some at least of these writings to be in close contact 
with the Saviour Himself, and the attitude to which we 
refer is reckless and wasteful of a precious heritage. We 
have ceased to be enslaved to the letter, but let us for that 
very reason be more deeply filled with the spirit behind 
the letter. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 


A 


LATIN MARCIONITE PROLOGUES TO THE EPISTLES 
OF ST. PAUL 


[THESE are contained in many MSS. of the Epistles of St. Paul in 
Latin, with or without commentaries on these Epistles. They are 
here given in the order in which they would appear in a Marcionite 
copy of the Apostle. Thus, and thus only, are they intelligible. 
For the text I am mainly! dependent on the editions of Dom 
Donatien de Bruyne, O.S.B., of the Abbey of Maredsous, Belgium, 
in the Revue Bénédictine, vol. xxiv. (1907), pp. 1-16, and of 
Dr. Peter Corssen of Berlin in the Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche 
Wissenschaft, Bd. x. (1909), pp. 37-9. The prologues will also be 
found printed in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, Bd. xxxii. (1907), 
138 ff. (Harnack), and in Professor Burkitt’s The Gospel History 
and its Transmission, second edition and later.] 


Ad Galatas 


Galatae sunt Graeci. Hi uerbum ueritatis? primum ab 
apostolo acceperunt sed post discessum eius temptati sunt 
a falsis apostolis ut in lege et circumcisione uerterentur. 
Hos apostolus reuocat ad fidem ueritatis,? scribens eis ab 
Epheso. 

Ad Corinthios 


Corinthii sunt Achaei. Et hi similiter ab apostolis 
audierunt uerbum ueritatis,? et subuersi multifarie a 
falsis apostolis, quidam a philosophiae uerbosa eloquentia, 


11 have freely used collations of the following MSS. made by myself: 
Paris B.N. 653 (saec. viii.-ix., from North Italy), 1853 (saec. viii. ex.), 
Epinal 6 (saec. ix. in.). 

2 This expression comes from one of the following places: 2 Cor. vi. 7, 
Eph. i. 13, Col. i. 5, 2 Tim. ii. 15, James i. 18. 


3 From 2 Thess. ii. 13. 
205 


206 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


alii a secta legis Iudaicae inducti. Hos reuocat apostolus 
ad ueram et euangelicam sapientiam, scribens eis ab 
Epheso [per Timotheum]. 


Ad Romanos 


Romani sunt in parte Italiae. Hi praeuenti a pseudo- 
apostolis, sub nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi in lege et 
prophetis erant inducti. Hos reuocat apostolus ad ueram 
et euangelicam fidem, scribens eis ab Athenis. 


Ad Thessalonicenses 


Thessalonicenses sunt Macedones in Christo Iesu,! qui 
accepto uerbo ueritatis? perstiterunt in fide, etiam in 
persecutione ciulum suorum ; praeterea nec receperunt ea 
quae a falsis apostolis dicebantur. Hos conlaudat apostolus, 
scribens eis ab Athenis. 


Ad Laodicenses 


Laodicenses sunt Asiani. Hi accepto uerbo ueritatis 2 
perstiterunt in fide. Hos conlaudat apostolus, scribens eis 
a Roma de carcere. 


Ad Colosenses 


Colosenses et hi, sicut Laodicenses, sunt Asiani. Et ipsi 
praeuenti erant a pseudoapostolis, nec ad hos accessit ipse 
apostolus, sed et hos per epistulam recorrigit: audierant 
enim uerbum ab Archippo, qui et ministerium? in eos 
accepit. Ergo apostolus iam ligatus scribit eis ab Epheso. 


Ad Philippenses 


Philippenses sunt Macedones. Hi accepto uerbo ueri- 
tatis 5 perstiterunt in fide, nec receperunt falsos apostolos. 
Hos apostolus conlaudat, scribens eis a Roma de carcere 
[per Epafroditum]. 


Ad Philemonem 


Philemoni familiares litteras facit pro Onesimo seruo 
eius. Scribit autem ei a Roma de carcere. 


1 This phrase comes from 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1. 
2 See above. 3 Col. iv. 17. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 207° 


{CatHot1c AppiTIOoNs.—For purposes of comparison the Catholic 
additions are added. ‘Ephesios’ was substituted for ‘ Laodi- 
censes,’ the Marcionite order of the Epistles was altered, and extra 
prologues were added for 2 Cor., 2 Thess., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., and Tit. 
The addition of a prologue to Hebrews was a still later stage, occur- 
ring probably not earlier than 350-80 4.p., and this is confirmed by 
the fact that six different prologues to this epistle have been found 
in Vulgate MSS. by De Bruyne (op. cit., p. 7, τ. 3). 


Ad Corinthios II. 


Post actam paenitentiam consolatorias? scribit eis a Troade, et 
conlaudans eos hortatur ad meliora. 


Ad Thessalonicenses 1]. 


Ad Thessalonicenses secundam®? scribit et notum facit eis de 
temporibus nouissimis, et de aduersarii detectione. Scribit [hanc 
epistulam] ab Athenis. 


Ad Timotheum I. 


Timotheum instruit et docet de ordinatione episcopatus et diaconii 
et omnis ecclesiasticae disciplinae. 


Ad Timotheum 11]. 


Item Timotheo scribit de exhortatione martyrii et omnis regulae 
ueritatis,? et quid futurum sit temporibus nouissimis, et de sua 
passione. 


Ad Titum 


Vitum commonefacit et instruit de constitutione presbyterii, et 
de spiritali conuersatione, et de hereticis uitandis, qui in scripturis 
Iudaicis credunt.] 


It is highly probable that the capitula into which Latin MSS. 
of the Epistles of St. Paul are divided, and the lists of chapter 
headings with which they are provided, are also part of the equip- 
ment of this Marcionite ‘ Apostle,’ and it would have been interest- 
ing, if the space had permitted, to print the text of these chapter 
headings here. Compare O. Schmid, Uber verschiedene Eintheilungen 
der heiligen Schrift (Graz, 1892), Ed. Riggenbach in the Neue 
Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie, Bd. i. (1892), pp. 498-605, 
Bd. iii. (1894), pp. 350-63; P. Corssen in the Zeitschrift fiir die 
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Bd. x. (1909), pp. 1-45, 97-102; De 
Bruyne in the Revue Bénédictine, xxv. (1908), pp. 423-30, xxviii. 


1 Understand, of course, litteras. 2 Understand epistulam. 
3 From the occurrence of this phrase one would judge that these Catholic 
prologues were composed not later than the middle of the third century a.D. 


208 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(1911), pp. 133-42. Nor must the earlier literature, such as the 
classic collection of Tommasi and Vezzosi, opera omnia, tom. 1. 
(Rome, 1747), Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate (Paris, 1893), pp. 357 ff., 
and Les Préfaces jointes aux livres de la Bible, etc. (Paris, 1902), 
pp. 64 f., be forgotten. A complete edition of the material is 
being prepared by Dom De Bruyne. 


B 


A MUTILATED ROMAN SECOND-CENTURY CANON, 
COMMONLY CALLED THE ‘MURATORIAN’?} 


᾿ : : ; : ‘ 
quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit. 

Tertium euangelii librum secundum Lucan 

Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi, 

cum eum Paulus quasi adiutorem (?) studiosum 
secum adsumsisset, nomine suo 5 
ex opinione conscripsit : dominum tamen nec ipse 
uidit in carne, et idem, prout assequi potuit, 

ita et a natiuitate [ohannis incipit dicere. 

Quartum euangeliorum Iohannes ex discipulis, 
cohortantibus condiscipulis et episcopis suis, 10 
dixit ‘ Conieiunate mihi hodie triduo, et quic 

cuique fuerit reuelatum, alterutrum 

nobis enarremus.’ Eadem nocte reue- 

latum Andreae ex apostolis ut recognos- 

centibus cunctis lohannes suo nomine 15 
cuncta describeret ; et ideo licet uaria sin- 

gulis euangeliorum libris principia 

doceantur, nihil tam differt creden- 

tium fidei, cum uno ac principali spiritu de- 

clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui- 20 
tate, de passione, de resurrectione, 

de conuersatione cum discipulis suis 

ac de gemino eius aduentu. 


1 First published by L. A. Muratori in 1740 (Antig. Ital. Medi Aeut, 
tom. iii. pp. 851-54) from a very corrupt Bobbio MS. of the end of the 
seventh or the beginning of the eighth century, now in the Ambrosian 
Library at Milan (I, 101 sup.). ‘he document has often been reprinted, 
perhaps most recently by Rev. E. S. Buchanan in Journal of Theological 
Studies, vol. viii. (1906-7), pp. 540 ff. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 209 


Primo in humilitate despectus quod fu- 

it secundum potestatem regalis patris, prae- 25 
clarum quod futurum est. Quid ergo 

mirum si Johannes tam constanter 

singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat ? 

dicens in semet ipso ‘ Quae uidimus oculis 

nostris et auribus audiuimus et manus 30 
nostrae palpauerunt, haec scripsimus uobis.’ 1 

Sic enim non solum uisorem sed auditorem 

se et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domini per ordi- 
nem profitetur. Acta autem omnium apostolorum 
sub uno libro scribta sunt. Lucas ‘ optimo Theofi- 35 
lo’ 2 conprendit quae sub praesentia eius singula 
gerebantur, sicuti et semota passione Petri 

euidenter declarat, et profectione Pauli ab Vr- 

be ad Hispaniam proficiscentis. Epistulae autem 
Pauli, quae a quo loco uel qua ex causa directae 40 
sint uolentibus intellegere ipsae declarant. 

Primum omnium Corinthiis scisma heresis in- 
terdicens, deinceps Galatis circumcisionem, 

Romanis autem ordinem scripturarum sed 

principium earum esse Christum intimans 45 
prolixius scripsit, de quibus singulis non neces- 

se est a nobis disputari. Cum ipse beatus 

apostolus Paulus, sequens prodecessoris sui 

Iohannis ordinem non nisi nominatim septem 
ecclesiis scribat, ordine tali: ad Corinthios 50 
prima, ad Efesios secunda, ad Philippenses ter- 

tia, ad Colosenses quarta, ad Galatas quin- 

ta, ad Tessalonicenses sexta, ad Romanos 

septima ;—uerum Corinthiis et Tessalonicen- 

sibus, licet pro correptione, iteratur—, una 55 
tamen per omnem orbem terrae ecclesia 

diffusa esse dinoscitur. Et Iohannes enim in A- 
pocalypsi, licet septem ecclesiis scribat, 

tamen omnibus dicit. Uerum ad Filemonem una 

et ad Titum una et ad Timotheum duae pro affec- 60 
tu et dilectione, in honorem tamen ecclesiae ca- 
tholicae in ordinationem ecclesiasticae 

disciplinae sanctificatae sunt. Fertur etiam ad 


11 Johni. 1. 2 Lukei. 3. 


210 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Laudicenses, alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli no- 

mine finctae ad heresem Marcionis, et alia plu- 65 
ra quae in catholica ecclesia recipi non 

potest : fel enim cum melle misceri non con- 

gruit. Epistola sane Iudae et suprascripti 

Tohannis duae in catholica habentur et Sapi- 

entia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius 70 
scripta. Apocalypsin etiam Iohannis et Pe- 

tri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nos- 

tris legi in ecclesia nolunt. Pastorem uero 

nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe 

Roma Herma conscripsit, sedente cathe- 75 
dram urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre 

eius, et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se pu- 

plicare uero in ecclesia populo neque inter 

prophetas conpleto numero, neque inter 

apostolos in fine temporum potest. 80 
Arsinoi autem seu Valentini uel Miltiadis 

nihil in totum recipimus, qui etiam nouum 
Psalmorum librum Marcioni conscripse- 

runt una cum Basilide et Asiano Catafry- 

gum constitutore. 85 


ΝΟΤῈΒ ON THE TEXT 
These notes do not take account of every variation from the MS. 
Trifling errors are silently corrected, but every alteration of im- 
portance is recorded. 
4. adiutorem is a suggestion of E. S. Buchanan: the MS. has ut 


33. se: MS. sed. 

37. semota passione: MS. semote passionem. 

38. et profectione: MS. sed profectionem. 

42. scisma: MS. scysme. I take heresis as a sort of constituent 

genitive after scisma. 

46. non: om. MS. 

48. prodecessoris: MS. prodecessuris. There is nothing wrong 
with the word prodecessor (=prodé-cessor perhaps, rather 
than pro-décessor), which is cited twice from Symmachus 
(saec. iv.), and occurs also at least four times in Augustine 
(saec. v.). The works of these authors are preserved in good 
MSS. The earliest dated instance is in a Roman imperial 
rescript of date between 307 and 314 a.D. 

54-55. I am very doubtful about the correctness of the reading 
and the punctuation here. 


62. 
68. 
69. 


75. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 211 


cf. prol. to 1 Tim. on p. 207. 

suprascripti (referring to line 49): MS. swperscrictio. 

catholica (=catholica ecclesia): cf. O. Rottmanner in the 
Revue Bénédictine, t. xvii. (1900), pp. 1-9, reprinted in 
Geistesfruchte aus der Klosterzelle (Miinchen, 1908), pp. 74-84 ; 
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol. iii. p. 617, vv. 30-62. 
cathedram: MS. cathetra. For sedere with the accusative, 
cf. cathedram pestilentiae sedere, Ps.-Aug. Quaest. vet. et nov. 
Test. cx. 5 (p. 272, 4, ed. Souter). 


. oportet, se: the text seems doubtful here. 
. conpleto numero (‘seeing that their number is complete 


[3 large, 12 small]’): MS. conpletum numero. 


. Miltiadis: MS. metiades. 
. tn totum =omnino, as often in the later Latin. 
. et: om. MS. The founder of the Catafrygas or Montanists 


was Montanus, not Basilides. 


σ 


CANON OF UNKNOWN DATE AND PROVENANCE IN 
THE ‘CODEX CLAROMONTANUS’ WRITTEN IN THE 
SIXTH CENTURY (PERHAPS IN SARDINIA) 


[An Old Testament list is followed by]— 


Kuangelia ITT. 


Mattheum uer. IIDC. (i.e. 2600 lines). 
Iohannes uer. IT. (¢.e. 2000 lines). 
Marcus uer. IDC. (i.e. 1600 lines). 
Lucam uer. IIDCCCC. (i.e. 2900 lines). 


Kpistulas Pauli: 


Ad Romanos uer. IXL. (1.6. 1040 lines). 
Ad Corinthios I. uer. ILX. (1.6. 1060 lines). 
Ad Corinthios 11. uer. LXX. (sic). 

Ad Galatas uer CCCL. 

Ad Efesios uer. CCCLXXV.! 

Ad Timotheum I. uer. CCVIIII. (sic). 

Ad Timotheum 11. uer. CCLXXXVIIII. 
Ad Titum uer. CXL. 

Ad Colosenses uer. CCLI. 

Ad Filemonem uer. L. 


1 There can be little doubt that Phil., 1 Thess., 2 Thess. should be inserted 


here. 


The faults in the numbers of lines show that the scribe was careless, 


212 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ad Petrum prima CC. 

Ad Petrum 11. uer. CXL. 

Iacobi uer. CCXX. 

Pr[ima] Iohannis epist. CCXX. 

Tohannis epistula IT. XX. 

Iohannis epistula III. XX. 

Iudae epistula uer. LX. 

—! Barnabae Epist. uer. DCCCL. 
Iohannis Reuelatio ? ICC. (ἴ.6. 1200 lines). 
Actus Apostolorum IIDC. (¢.e. 2600 lines). 
— Pastoris uersi IIII. (=4000 lines). 

— Actus Pauli uer. IIIDLX (=3560 lines). 
— Reuelatio Petri CCLXX. 


[Note.—Harnack is of opinion that this catalogue belongs in its 
original Greek form to Egypt and to a date about 300 (Chronologie 
der alichristlichen Interatur, Bd. ii. pp. 84 ff.): Leipoldt, Geschichte, 
U.S.W., i. p. 78, approves. ] 


D 


AN AFRICAN CANON OF DATE ABOUT 360 A.D. (SOME- 
TIMES CALLED THE CHELTENHAM OR MOMMSENIAN 
CANON) 


[An Old Testament list is followed by]— 


Item indiculum Noui Testamenti :— 
Euangelia IIII. Mattheum ar IIDCC (~2700 lines). 
Marcum uer MDCC. 
Iohannem ur MDCCC. 
Lucam ur ITICCC. (+3300 lines). 


Fiunt omnes uersus X (10,000 lines). 
Epistulae Pauli i (¢.e. numero) XIII. 

Actus Apostolorum ter IIIDC. (+3600 lines). 
Apocalypsis uetr MDCCC. 


1 The horizontal line represents that the scribe regarded the four works 
thus indicated as not on the same plane as the others. 

2 The Latin rendering of Apocalypsis is not common; but cf. Ps.-Aug. 
awe wet. et nov. test. CXXVII., 76, 2 (bis); 122, 5; Isid. tymol., 
vi. 2, 49. 

3 Found by Theodor Mommsen in a MS. (12266, saec. x.) in the Phillipps 
Library at Cheltenham in 1885. Another copy has turned up at St. Gall 
(133, 5860. ix.). 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 213 


Epistulae Iohannis IIT. ur CCCL. 
una sola. 

Kpistulae Petri II. wer CCC. 

una sola.? 


Quoniam indiculum uersuum in urbe Roma non ad 
liquidum, sed et alibi auaritiae causa non habent integrum, 
per singulos libros conputatis sy!!abis—posui numero XVI. 
uersum Vergilianum—omnibus libris numerum adscribsi. 


[Note-—The length of ancient prose works was measured, the 
standard of a versus (or line) being the fifteen or sixteen syllables 
usual in the Virgilian hexameter (perhaps we ought to read wersum 
(gen. pl.) Uergilianorum above). A work was said to consist of 
so many of these lines, and this was the basis of the payment of 
scribes, the rate being so much a line. Roman booksellers had been 
guilty of fraud in the matter of the measurement of such works. 
The science of the measurement of books is called Stichometry. ] 


E 


EXTRACT FROM FESTAL LETTER XXXIX. OF 
ATHANASIUS (367 A.D.) 


1. ᾿Αλλ’ ἐπειδὴ περὶ μὲν TOV αἱρετικῶν ἐμνήσθημεν ds νεκρῶν, 
περὶ ἡμῶν δὲ ὡς ἐχόντων πρὸς σωτηρίαν τὰς θείας γραφὰς καὶ 
πο ἢ μή πως; ὡς ἔγραψεν Κορινθίοις THavaos, ὀλίγοι τῶν 
ee ‘amo τῆς ἁπλότητος καὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος δ" πλανηθῶσιν 
ὑπὸ “ τῆς πανουργίας’ τινων ἀνθρώπων καὶ λοιπὸν ἐντυγχάνειν 
ἑτέροις ἄρξωνται, τοῖς λεγομένοις ἀποκρύφοις, ἀπ ΤΕ ΜΕΤῸΝ τῇ 
ὁμωνυμίᾳ τῶν ἀληθινῶν βιβλίων, παρακαλῶ" ἀνέχεσθε," 8 εἰ 
περὶ ὧν ἐπίστασθε, περὶ τούτων κἀγὼ μνημονεύων γράφω διὰ 
δὲ τὴν ἀνάγκην Pees χρήσιμον τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 2. Μέλλων 
δὲ τούτων μνημονεύειν χρήσομαι πρὸς σύστασιν τῆς ἐμαυτοῦ 
Atay τῷ τύπῳ τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ Λουκᾶ, λεγο καὶ αὐτός" 

ςἐπειδήπερ᾽ τινες reer ae ἀνατάξασθαι᾽ 4 ἑαυτοῖς τὰ Ἢ: 
μεχα. πε τα καὶ ἐπιμῖξαι ταῦτα τῇ ᾿θεοπνεύστῳ γραφ,᾽ ° 

περ ἧς ᾿ἐπληροφορήθημεν καθὼς παρέδοσαν’ τοῖς πατράσιν 
Sot an’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, 
ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ᾽ προτραπέντι παρὰ γνησίων ἀδελφῶν καὶ μαθόντι 

1 Expresses a preference for First John and First Peter exclusively. 

22 Cor. xi. 3. This testimoniwm ought to be added to my critical 


apparatus. : ' ἣν 
2 2 or; xi. 1, 4, 4 Lukei. 1. 5 Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 16. 


214 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


“ἄνωθεν, ἑξῆς ἐκθέσθαι τὰ κανονιζόμενα καὶ παραδοθέντα πιστευ- 
θέντα τε θεῖα εἶναι βιβλία, ‘iva’ ἕκαστος, εἰ μὲν ἠπατήθη, 
κατα γνῷ} τῶν πλανησάντων, ὁ δὲ καθαρὸς διαμείνας χαίρῃ 
πάλιν ὑπομιμνησκόμενος. 

3. "Ἔστιν τοίνυν τῆς μὲν παλαιᾶς διαθήκης βιβλία... 

7. Ta δὲ τῆς καινῆς πάλιν οὐκ ὀκνητέον εἰπεῖν. ἔστιν δὲ 

a 9 , , \ « Ὕ an κ᾿ 
ταῦτα" Εὐαγγέλια τέσσαρα, κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μᾶρκον, κατὰ 
Λουκᾶν, κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην. 8. Εἶτα μετὰ ταῦτα Πράξεις ᾽Απο- 
στόλων καὶ ᾿Ἐπιστολαὶ ‘ Καθολικαὶ᾽ καλούμεναι τῶν ἀποστόλων 
ε \ o ᾿ ΄ κ ΄ , \ , > ) , 
ἑπτὰ οὕτως" ᾿Ιακώβου μὲν pia, Ἰ]έτρου δὲ δύο, εἶτα ᾿Ιωάννου 

»" Ν Ν a ’ 47> / Ν. 4 at. SA 
τρεῖς, καὶ μετὰ ταύτας ᾿Ιούδα μία. 9. IIpds τούτοις Παύλου 
ἀποστόλου εἰσὶν ᾿᾿πιστολαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, τῇ τάξει γραφόμεναι 

4 i. ΄ Ν « / Ψ Ν ’ δύ Ν 
οὕτως᾽ πρώτη Ipods Ρωμαίους, εἶτα II pos Κορινθίους to, καὶ 
μετὰ ταῦτα Πρὸς Γαλάτας μία, Πρὸς ᾿Εφεσίους μία, Πρὸς 
Φιλιππησίους μία, Πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς μία, καὶ μετὰ ταύτας Ἡρὸς 
Θεσσαλονικέας δύο καὶ ἡ Πρὸς Ἑβραίους: καὶ εὐθὺς Πρὸς μὲν 
Τιμόθεον δύο, Πρὸς δὲ Τίτον μία, καὶ τελευταία ἡ ἸΙρὸς Φιλή- 

’ A ,ὔ ϑ , “ὮΝ LA 2 
μονα μία: καὶ πάλιν Ἰωάννου ποκά ὑψις. 

10. Ταῦτα πηγαὶ σωτηρίου, ὥστε τὸν διψῶντα “ἐμφορεῖσθαι 
τῶν ἐν τούτοις λογίων ἐν τούτοις μόνοις τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας " 
διδασκαλεῖον εὐαγγελίζεται: μηδεὶς τούτοις ἐπιβαλλέτω, μηδὲ 

’ > ’ 3 \ δὲ ’ € , Σ δὸ Ψ' 
τούτων ἀφαιρείσθω τι" ὃ περὶ δὲ τούτων ὁ κύριος Σαδδουκαίους 
μὲν ἐδυσώπει λέγων: “Πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς,᾽ 4 τοὺς 
δὲ Ιουδαίους παρήνει" “᾿ρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς, ote’ αὐταί “ εἰσιν 

ε “ Ν » C3 25 ) vi ο , λ , Ν᾿ 
αἵ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ. εὐ 5 ἕνεκά γε πλείονος 

a , «ε 
ἀκριβείας προστίθημι καὶ τοῦτο, γράφων ἀναγκαίως, ὡς ὅτι 
3 Wye ’ ΄ ” > , fe 
ἐστιν καὶ ἕτερα βιβλία τούτων ἔξωθεν, ov κανονιζόμενα μέν, 
τετυπωμένα δὲ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων ἀναγινώσκεσθαι τοῖς ἄρτι 

if A ‘ a“ > ’, λό 6 = , 
προσερχομένοις κατηχεῖσθαι τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγον. οφία 
Σολομῶντος καὶ Σοφία Σιρὰχ καὶ Ἐσθὴρ καὶ ᾿Ιουδὶθ καὶ Τωβίας 
καὶ Διδαχὴ καλουμένη Τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων καὶ ὁ “Ποιμήν. 12. Καὶ 
ὅμως, ἀγαπητοί, κἀκείνων κανονιζομένων καὶ τούτων ἀναγινω- 
σκομένων, οὐδαμοῦ τῶν ἀποκρύφων μνήμη, ἀλλὰ αἱρετικῶν ἐστιν 
ἐπίνοια, γραφόντων. μὲν ὅτε θέλουσιν αὐτά, χαριζομένων δὲ καὶ 
προστιθέντων αὐτοῖς χρόνους, ἵνα ὡς παλαιὰ προφέροντες πρό- 
φασιν ἔχωσιν ἀπατᾶν ἐκ τούτου τοὺς ἀκεραίους. [End of the 


Greek] 


1 Cf. Luke i. 1-4. 

2 Athanasius’ list is identical with that of the Council of Laodicea of four 
years before, except that there the Apocalypse is absent (see Westcott’s 
General Survey of the History of the Canon 4 {London, 1875), p. 533). Gregory 
of Nazianzus’ (+ 389 or 390) list agrees exactly with that of the Council. 

3 Cf. Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. 4 Matt. xxii. 29. 5 John v. 39. 

6 Cf. Luke i. 4. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 215 


[The above text is borrowed from Zahn, op. cit., pp. 86 ff., with 
slight alterations. From his German also I translate the Coptic 
fragments which follow on the above. ] 


TRANSLATION 


1. But since I have spoken of the heretics as dead, while with 
regard to ourselves as possessors of the divine writings unto sal- 
vation, I am actually afraid lest in any way, as Paul said in writing 
to the Corinthians, a few of the undefiled may be led astray from 
the simplicity and the purity by the villainy of certain men, and 
thereafter begin to consort with others, the so-called secret (books), 
being deceived by their possession of the same names as the genuine 
books, I give you exhortation: bear with me if I actually make 
mention of writings you know, and if I write (about them) on account 
of the (present) stress and the advantage of the Church. 2. Seeing 
I am to mention these matters, I will follow, to back up my venture- 
someness, the example uf the evangelist Luke, and I also will say: 
Since certain men have attempted to arrange for themselves the 
so-called secret writings and to mingle them with the God-inspired 
Scripture, concerning which we have been fully informed, even as 
was handed down to our fathers by those who were eye-witnesses 
and servants of the word from the beginning, I also resolved, being 
encouraged by true brethren and learning (all) from the beginning, 
to set forth in order the writings that are in the list and handed 
down and believed to be divine, in order that each person, if he 
has been deceived, may condemn those who led him astray, and that 
he who has remained stainless may rejoice, being again reminded 
(of the truth). 

3. There are then of the Old Testament books .. . 

7. Those of the New Testament I must not shrink from mention- 
ing in their turn. They are these: Four Gospels, According to 
Matthew, According to Mark, According to Luke, According to 
John. 8. Then after these are Acts of Apostles and Letters of the 
Apostles called ‘ Catholic,’ seven of them, as follows :—Of James 
one, of Peter two, then of John three, and after these one of Jude. 
9. In addition, there are fourteen Letters of Paul the apostle, 
written thus in their order: the first to the Romans, then two to 
the Corinthians, and thereafter one to Galatians, to Ephesians one, 
to Philippians one, to Colossians one, and after these to Thessa- 
lonians two and that to Hebrews; and, without a break, to Timothy 
two, to Titus one, and lastly that to Philemon, one; and of John 
again the Revelation. 

10. These are springs of salvation, so that he that is thirsty can 
fill himself with the (divine) responses in them; in these alone is 
the good news of the teaching of true religion proclaimed; let no 
one add to them or take away aught of them. It was in regard to 


216 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


these that the Lord was ashamed of the Sadducees, saying :—‘ Ye 
are being led astray, as ye know not the scriptures,’ and exhorted 
the Jews: ‘Search the scriptures, for they are the very writings 
that witness concerning me.’ 11. But for the sake of more exact- 
ness of detail, I add also this, writing of necessity, that there are 
᾿ also other books apart from these, not indeed in the list, but pro- 
duced by our ancestors to be read by those who are just coming 
forward to receive oral instruction in the word of true religion: 
The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach and Esther and 
Judith and Tobit, and the so-called Teaching of the Apostles and 
The Shepherd. 12, And nevertheless, beloved, though the former 
writings be in the list and the latter are read, there is nowhere 
mention of the secret writings, but they are a device of heretics, 
who write them when they will, furnishing them with dates and 
adding them, that bringing them forth as ancient they may thus 
have an excuse for deceiving the undefiled. 


13.1 But great is the hardness of heart of those who do this and 
are not afraid of the word which is written: ‘ Ye shall not add to 
the word that I command you, nor take away from it.’? Who 
has made the simple-minded believe that those books are those 
of Enoch, seeing that there are no writings earlier than Moses ? 
How is it that they say: ‘ Isaiah has secret books’? He, who openly 
preaches on the high mountain and who says: ‘I have not spoken 
in obscure language nor in a place of dark country.’* How has 
Moses secret books? He, who composed Deuteronomy, while calling 
heaven and earth to witness. 14. But this leads to nothing else 
but the itching of the ears,5 and the means of piety,* and the desire 
to please women.” But Paul formerly wrote to his pupil about such 
men: ‘A time will come, when people will not endure the healthy 
teaching, but will raise up for themselves teachers according to 
their own lusts, since their ears itch, and they turn away their ears 
from the truth and turn to fables.’® For, in truth, the Apocrypha 
are fables, and attention directed to them is vain, because they are 
vain and abominable voices. For this means beginnings of dis- 
sensions and a like goal is quarrelling among men, who do not care 
about the Church’s advantage, but long to receive honour from 
those whom they have deceived, that people may think of them 
that they are great, because they make known new things (words). 
So it is fitting that we reject such books; for, even if we find a 
useful word in them, yet it is good not to believe them. For that 
comes from the cunning of those... 

1 Apologies are due to the shade of Athanasius for this part, which isa 
translation of a translation of a translation. 

2 Cf. Apoc. xxii. 18, 19. 3 Isaiah xlv. 19. 4 Deut. i? 


5 Cf. 2 Tim. iv. 3. 6 Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 5-6. 
7 Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 6. 8 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 217 


15. .. . inthe scriptures. I have contented myself with these, 
that you may keep them in mind, in order that, since you possess 
the holy patterns and admirably put in practice the words of the 
holy scriptures, you may one day hear (the words) :—‘ Hail, thou 
good and faithful servant, as thou wert faithful over a little, I will 
set thee over much.’? [have not really written this as if to instruct, 
for I have not attained to such importance, but, when I heard that 
the heretics, or rather the miserable Meletians,? boast of the so- 
called Apocrypha, for that reason I have made known to you all 
that I heard from my father, seeing I am as it were with you and 
you with me ‘in’ one ‘ house, which is the community of the living 
God, pillars and shafts of the truth.’* This allows us, by our 
coming to one place, to purify ourselves from all defilement, from 
doubt and dispute and haughtiness of children, and lets us content 
ourselves with the scripture inspired by God, that it teaches us, 
whose books we have indicated with the above words, which they 
are and how many in number, etc. 


F 


ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF PAUL IN THE COMMENTARY 
OF ‘ AMBROSIASTER’ (ABOUT 380 IN ROME) 


Ad Romanos. 

Ad Corinthios I. 

Ad Corinthios IT. 

Ad Galatas. 

Ad Ephesios. 

Ad Philippenses. 

Ad Thessalonicenses I. 
Ad Thessalonicenses IT. 
Ad Colossenses. 

Ad Titum. 

Ad Timotheum I. 

Ad Timotheum II. 

Ad Philemonem.4 


[Note.—The placing of the Epistles to the Thessalonians before 
that to Colossians is no doubt due to a desire to group the Mace- 


1 Matt. xxv. 21, 23. 

2 This sect was constituted at Antioch in 361 by Melitius, who had 
recentiy been made Bishop of that diocese. 

31 Tim. iii. 15. 

4 Souter, Study of Ambrosiaster (Cambridge, 1905), p. 197 ; Ambrosiaster 
(Joc. cit.) also advocates the order for the Gospels: Matthew, Luke, Mark, 
John, but whether as merely ideal is uncertain. 


218 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


donian epistles together. This order is found also in Priscillian 
(cf. the introduction to Schepss’ edition, page xli.), the Roman Canon 
of 400 (Document N), Augustine (Document L and Epist. ad 
Cath, xii. 31, Speculum, etc.), Pelagius [and his dependants Pseudo- 
Jerome, Cassiodorus and Co., Sedulius Scottus], Gildas (Zeitschrift 
fiir celt. Philol. iv. (1902-3), p. 528), Cassiodorus, Complexiones, 
Isidore, and a large number of good Vulgate MSS. (cf. Berger, 
Histoire de la Vulgate [Paris, 1893], p. 341). Victorinus (7 303) in 
Apoc. has also matter bearing on this question, but we must await 
the publication of Haussleiter’s edition. Titus followed Colossians 
also in Cyprian’s copy (Turner in Journal of Theological Studies, 
vol. vi. [1904-5], p. 262).] 1 


G 
[COUNCIL UNDER DAMASUS (382 AT ROME)] 


[The publication of Professor Ernst von Dobschiitz’s Das Decretum 
Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et Non Recipiendis (Leipzig, 1912), 
on the eve of the appearance of the present work, has shown that 
the so-called Damasine decree, which I had printed at this point, 
is unauthentic, and is really an extract from the so-called Decretum 
Gelasianum, a production of the sixth century. See Document S.] 


H 


FILASTER, BISHOP OF BRESCIA, DIUERSARUM 
HERESEON LIBER (383, OR SOON AFTER) 


32 (60) Alii post hos sunt heretici qui Euangelium Cata 
Iohannen et Apocalypsin ipsius non accipiunt, et cum 
non intellegunt uirtutem scripturae nec desiderant discere, 
in heresi permanent pereuntes, ut etiam Cerinthi illus 
heretici esse audeant dicere <et Euangelium Cata Iohannen>? 
et Apocalypsin ipsius itidem non beati Iohannis euan- 
gelistae et apostoli, sed Cerinthi heretici .. . 

60 (88) Alia est heresis, quae Apocryfa, id est secreta 
<tendet solum profetarum et apostolorum, <neque> 
accipit scripturas canonicas, id est legem et profetas, 
uetus et nouum scilicet testamentum. (2) Et cum uolunt 
solum illa apocrifa legere, studiose contraria scripturis 
canonicis sentiunt, atque paulatim dogmatizant, contra 


1 The hurriedly written note in Study of Ambrosiaster, p. xii., is inexact, 
and is hereby and below, Document P, corrected. 

2 The angular brackets, according to convention, enclose matter not 
present in the MSS., but required by the sense. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 219 


eas dantes sententias, contra legem et profetas contraque 
dispositiones beatissimorum apostolorum consulta po- 
nentes: (3) e quibus sunt maxime Manichei, Gnostici, 
Nicolaitae, Valentiniani, et alii quam plurimi, qui apocrifa 
profetarum et apostolorum, id est Actus separatos haben- 
tes, canonicas legere scripturas contemnunt. (4) Propter 
quod statutum est ab apostolis beatis et eorum succes- 
soribus non aliud legi in ecclesia debere catholica nisi 
legem et profetas et Euangelia et Actus Apostolorum et 
Pauli tredecim! Epistulas, et septem alias, Petri? duas, 
Iohannis tres, Iudae unam, et unam I[acobi, quae septem 
Actibus Apostolorum coniunctae sunt. (5) Scripturae 
autem absconditae, id est apocryfa,® etsi legi debent mo- 
rum causa a perfectis, non ab omnibus debent, quia non 
intellegentes multa addiderunt et tulerunt quae uolue- 
runt heretici. (6) Nam Manichei apocryfa beati Andreae 
apostoli, id est Actus quos fecit ueniens de Ponto in 
Greciam, <accipiunt>, quos conscripserunt tune discipuli 
sequentes beatum apostolum, unde et habent Manichei 
et alii tales Andreae beati et Iohannis Actus euangelistae 
beati et Petri similiter beatissimi? apostoli, et Pauli pariter 
beati apostoli: (7) in quibus quia signa fecerunt magna 
et prodigia, ut et pecudes et canes et bestiae loquerentur, 
etiam et animas hominum tales uelut canum et pecudum 
similes inputauerunt esse heretici perditi. 

61 (89) Sunt alii qui epistulam beati Pauli ad Hebreos 
non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse 
beati apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi, (2) 
alii autem Lucae beatissimi euangelistae aiunt: epistulam 
etiam ad Laudicenses scriptam beati apostoli quidam 
uolunt legere. Et quia addiderunt in ea quaedam non 
bene sentientes, inde non legitur in Ecclesia, et, si legitur 
a quibusdam, non tamen in Ecclesia legitur populo nisi 
tredecim epistulae ipsius, et ad Hebreos interdum. (3) 
Et in ea quia rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, inde 
non putant esse eiusdem apostoli; et quia et ‘factum ’ ‘4 
Christum dicit in ea, inde non legitur: de paenitentia 
autem propter Nouatianos aeque. .. . 


1 Note the absence of Hebrews. 

2 Note the Roman influence in these two places: Peter’s epistles come 
first, and he is beatissimus, while the others are only beati. 

3 Note absconditus as the rendering of ἀπόκρυφος. 4 Hebr., iii, 2. 


20 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


i 


ST. JEROME’S LETTER (LIII.) TO PAULINUS, A 
PRESBYTER (394 ἢ) 


...§ 9 Cernis me scripturarum amore raptum excessisse 
modum epistulae, et tamen non inplesse quod volui. . 
Tangam et Nouum breuiter Testamentum: Mattheus, 
Marcus, Lucas, Iohannes, quadriga domini et uerum 
cherubin, quod interpretatur ‘scientiae multitudo,’ per 
totum corpus oculati sunt, scintillae micant, discurrunt 
fulgura, pedes habent rectos et in sublime tendentes, terga 
pennata et ubique uolitantia. tenent se mutuo sibique 
perplexi sunt et quasi rota in rota uoluuntur et pergunt, 
quocumque eos flatus sancti spiritus duxerit. Paulus 
apostolus ad septem scribit ecclesias—octaua enim ad 
Hebraeos a plerisque [very many]! extra numerum ponitur 
—Timotheum instruit ac Titum, Philemonem pro fugitiuo 
famulo deprecatur. super quo tacere melius puto quam 
pauca dicere. Actus Apostolorum nudam quidem sonare 
uidentur historiam et nascentis ecclesiae infantiam texere, 
sed, si nouerimus scriptorem eorum Lucam esse medicum, 
‘cuius laus est in euangelio,’? animaduertemus pariter 
omnia uerba illius languentis animae esse medicamina. 
Iacobus, Petrus, Iohannes, Iudas septem epistulas edide- 
runt tam mysticas quam succinctas et breues pariter ac 
longas: breues in uerbis, longas in sententiis, ut rarus non 
in earum lectione caecuttiat. Apocalypsis Iohannis tot 
habet sacramenta quot uerba. parum dixi, et pro merito 
uoluminis laus omnis inferior est; in uerbis singulis 
multiplices latent intellegentiae. 


K 
SYNOD OF CARTHAGE (397) 


Can. 39. Item placuit ut praeter scripturas canonicas 
nihil in ecclesia legatur sub nomine diuinarum scripturarum. 
Sunt autem canonicae scripturae hae :—{then follows a list 
of Old Testament books]. Noui autem Testamenti :— 

Kuangeliorum libri quattuor. 
Actuum Apostolorum liber unus. 


1 We cannot insist on the Ciceronian usage of plerique in a writer as late as 
Jerome. 2 2 Cor. viii. 18. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 221 


Epistulae Pauli Apostoli xiii. 
eiusdem ad Hebreos una. 

Petri apostoli duae. 

Tohannis tres. 

Jacobi i. 

Tudae i. 

Apocalypsis Iohannis liber unus. 


[De confirmando isto canone transmarina ecclesia 
consulatur. | 

Hoc etiam fratri et consacerdoti nostro Bonifatio, uel 
aliis earum partium episcopis, pro confirmando isto canone 
innotescat, quia a patribus ista accepimus in Ecclesia 
legenda. Liceat autem legi passiones martyrum, cum 
anniuersarii eorum dies celebrantur.! 


L 


ST. AUGUSTINE, DE DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA (397, on 
LATER), II. cc. 8-9, §§ 12-14 (ed. Bened. tom. iii. pars. i. [Paris, 
1680] pp. 23, 24). 


KErit igitur diuinarum scripturarum sollertissimus inda- 
gator, qui primo totas legerit notasque habuerit, et si 
nondum intellectu, iam tamen lectione dumtaxat,? eas 
quae appellantur canonicae. Nam ceteras securius leget 
fide ueritatis instructus, ne praeoccupent inbecillem 
animum et periculosis mendaciis adque fantasmatis elu- 
dentes praeiudicent aliquid contra sanam intellegentiam. 
In canonicis autem scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum 
quam plurium auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illae 
sint, quae apostolicas sedes habere et epistulas accipere 
meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis 
canonicis, ut eas, quae ab omnibus accipiuntur ecclesiis 
catholicis, praeponat eis, quas quaedam non accipiunt ; in 
eis uero, quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas, 
quas plures grauioresque accipiunt, eis, quas pauciores 
minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiae tenent. Si autem alias 
inuenerit a pluribus, alias a grauioribus haberi, quamquam 


1 Augustine carried out this practice at Hippo Regius, as his surviving 
sermons show. 
2 Wrongly punctuated before dumtazxut in the editions, 


222 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


hoc facile inuenire ! non possit, aequalis tamen auctoritatis 
eas habendas puto. (13) Totus autem canon scripturarum, 
in quo istam considerationem uersandam dicimus, his libris 
continetur [follows Old Testament list] His XLIIII. libris 
Testamenti Veteris terminatur auctoritas: Noui autem 
quattuor libris Euangelii, secundum Mattheum, secundum 
Marcum, secundum Lucam, secundum Iohannem, quattuor- 
decim epistulis Pauli apostoli, ad Romanos, ad Corinthios 
duabus, ad Galatas, ad Efesios, ad Philippenses, ad Thesa- 
lonicenses duabus, ad Colosenses, ad Timotheum duabus, 
ad Titum, ad Filemonem, ad Hebreos; Petri duabus; 
tribus Iohannis, una Iudae et una [acobi; Actibus Aposto- 
lorum libro uno, et Apocalypsi Iohannis libro uno (ce. 9). 
(14) In his omnibus libris timentes deum et pietate 
mansueti quaerunt voluntatem dei. 


[Note.—The order ‘ Phil. Thess.’ is confirmed by the genuine 
Augustinian Speculum, by his Epistula ad Catholicos, 12, 31, and 
possibly by other passages, but contradicted by his Contra Partem 
Donat: post Gesta, 4, 4, in favour of our order.] 


M 


RUFINUS, PRESBYTER, OF AQUILEIA,? COMM. IN SYMB. 
APOST. ὃ 36 (BETWEEN 397 AND 410) 


Hic igitur spiritus sanctus est, qui in Veteri Testamento 
legem et prophetas, in nouo euangelia et apostolos inspirauit. 
Unde et apostolus dicit :—(2 Tim. iii. 16 quoted). Et ideo 
quae sunt Noui ac Veteris Testamenti volumina, quae 
secundum maiorum traditionem per ipsum spiritum sanctum 
inspirata creduntur et ecclesiis Christi tradita, conpetens 
uidetur hoc in loco euidenti numero, sicut ex patrum 
monumentis accepimus, designare. 

(37) Itaque Veteris Testamenti. .. . 

Noui uero quattuor Euangelia, Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, 
et Iohannis. Actus Apostolorum, quos describit Lucas. 
Pauli apostoli Epistulae quattuordecim. Petri apostoli 
duae. lacobi, fratris domini et apostoli, una. Iudae una. 
Iohannis tres. Apocalypsis Iohannis. 

1 1 think tnweniri more likely here. 


2 One of the greatest Christian travellers of his age, thoroughly conversant 
with and much dependent on Greek sources. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 223 


Haec sunt, quae patres intra canonem concluserunt, et 
ex quibus fidei nostrae adsertiones constare uoluerunt. 

(38) Sciendum tamen est quod et alii libri sunt, qui non 
canonici, sed ecclesiastici a maioribus appellati sunt... . 
[Wisdom, etc.}: in Nouo uero Testamento libellus, qui 
dicitur Pastoris seu Hermas, qui appellatur Duae Viae uel 
Iudicium Petri, quae omnia legi quidem in ecclesiis uolue- 
runt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei con- 
firmandam. Ceteras uero scripturas ‘ apocryphas ’ nomina- 
runt, quas in ecclesiis legi noluerunt. Haec nobis a patribus 
tradita sunt, quae, ut dixi, oportunum uisum est hoc in 
loco designare ad instructionem eorum, qui prima sibi 
ecclesiae ac fidei elementa suscipiunt, ut sciant ex quibus 
sibi fontibus uerbi dei haurienda sint pocula. 


N 
A ROMAN CANON (OF DATE ABOUT 400) 


Secundum Hieronimum ordo scripturarum nec non et 
uersuum quae habentur in canone Veteris Testamenti. .. . 
Item Novi TESTAMENTI: 

Euangeliorum libri IIIT. 

secundum Mattheum liber 


habet uersus numero IIDXX. (t.e. 2520) 
secundum Marcum liber habet 

uersus numero MDCC. 
secundum Lucan liber habet 

uersus numero IIDCCCL. (i.e. 2850) 
secundum [ohannem liber habet 

uersus numero TICCOX. (i.e. 2310) 


facti sunt uersus numero VILIICCCLX.(=9360) 
Actus Apostolorum quos descrip- 
sit Lucas 1 euangelista : liber 
habet uersus numero IIIDCCC. (i.e. 3800) 
Kpistulae apostolorum canonicae : 
epistula Iacobi I. habet uersus 
numero 
epistula Petri habet uersus 
numero CCC. 


1 Cf. Rufinus’ phrase above, 


224 


THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

item epistula Petri secunda 

habet uersus numero CC. 
epistula Iohannis prima habet 

uersus numero CCLX. 
eiusdem ! secunda habet uersus 

numero LV. 
cuius supra III. habet uersus 

numero LXVIIII. 
epistula Iudae zelotis habet 

uersus numero LVI. 
facti sunt MCCXL. 


Epistulae Pauli apostoli numero XITII. 


ad Romanos habet uersus nu- 

mero DCCCL. 
ad Corinthios I. habet uersus 

numero DCCCXLII. 
ad Corinthios II. habet uersus 

numero DCCXII. 
ad Galatas habet uersus numero CCCXII. 
ad Ephesios habet uersus nu- 


mero CCCCXII. 
ad Philippenses habet uersus 
numero CCC. 


[ad Thesalonicenses I. habet 
uersus numero] 
ad Thesalonicenses II. habet 


uersus numero CCLXXX. 
ad Colosenses habet uersus nu- 

mero CX. 
ad Timotheum 1. habet uersus 

numero XCVII. 
[ad Timotheum IT. habet uersus 

numero J 
ad Filimonem habet uersus 

numero XLVIIII. 
ad Hebraeos habet uersus’ nu- 

mero DCCL. 
facti sunt uersus numero CXITII. 


Apocalipsis Iohannis 


apostoli habet uersus numero MCCCC. 


1 Note the difference from the ‘ Damasine’ list. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 225 


Facti sunt omnes uersus Veteris Testamenti .. item 


Noui Testamenti facti sunt numero X VIIITDCCCCXIIII 
(1.6. 19,914) : ac sic omnes in unum Veteris et Noui Testa- 
MIGIEL. 2 ἃς 

. . . quattuor autem animalia secundum mysterium et 
spiritalem intellegentiam quattuor sunt euangelistae. Ita 
Mattheus in typo hominis, quia in capite libri dixit: 
‘Christi autem generatio sic erat,’ et reliqua; Marcus 
in typo leonis, quia uoce magna fremens, a Iohanne Bap- 
tista, qui erat tunc in deserto, sumpsit exordium ; Lucas 
in typo uituli, quia praemissa breuiter praefatione ad 
Theofilum a sacerdotio et hostia coepit ; L[ohannes in typo 
aquilae mox mystice ad caelestia conuolauit, quippe qui 
in pectus domini, ut mysterium agnosceret, recubuerat, et 
uere Boanerges (quod est interpretatum ‘ tonitrui filius ’) 
exclamauit : ‘ In Principio, etc.’ 


[Notes.—It has been conjectured by Mr. C. H. Turner,! whose 
text, from a Freising MS. now at Munich (Clm. 6243, saec. viii. med.), 
is, with slight alterations, borrowed above, that this canon may be 
a translation of a Greek one in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea. 
It has certain analogies with the ‘Gelasian’ List (Document S): 
the epithet ‘canonical’ applied to the Catholic Epistles, and title 
*Zelotes’ added to the name of Jude. But in certain respects it 
differs from the ‘ Gelasian’ list. It will be noted, further, that our 
MS. is defective in omitting one of the Thessalonian and one of the 
Timothean Epistles. Also, the numbers are not infrequently 
obviously at fault. Errors in numbers are of all the most frequent 
in ancient MSS. The symbolism at the end goes back to Irenaeus 
(from the Apocalypse, iv. 7), iii. 11, 8, and is found also in the 
prologue to Pseudo-Jerome on the Four Gospels. ] 


0 
Ι 
DOCTRINE OF ADDAI (SYRIAC) (Szconp Hatr or Fourta 


CENTURY) ? 


‘The Law and the Prophets and the Gospel . . . and 
the Epistles of Paul... and the Acts of the twelve 


1 Journal of Theological Studies, vol. ii. (1900-1), pp. 236-53. 
3 See Burkitt, Hvangelion da-Mepharreshé, ii. p. 162, 


Er 


226 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Apostles . . . these books read ye in the Church of God, 
and with these read not others.’ 


I 
A SYRIAC CANON OF DATE ABOUT 4002 


Gospel of Matthew, 2522 lines. 
Gospel of Mark, 1675 lines. 
Gospel of Luke, 3083 lines. 
Gospel of John, 1737 lines. 
The whole Gospel, 9218 lines. 
The Action 3 of the Apostles, 2720 lines. 
Of the Apostle Paul, Letter of the Galatians, 265 lines. 
Of the Corinthians, the First 946 lines. 
Of the Corinthians, the Second 653 lines, 
Of the Romans, 825 lines. 
Of the Hebrews, 837 lines. 
Of the Colossians, 275 lines. 
Of the Ephesians, 318 lines. 
[Of the Philippians, 318 lines].® 
Of the Philippians, 235 lines. 
Of the Thessalonians, the First 417 lines. 
Of the Thessalonians, the Second 118 lines. 
<Of Timothy, the First ὁ ἄς 
Of Timothy, the Second 114 lines, 
Of Titus, 116 lines. 
Of Philemon, 53 lines. 
The entire Apostle, 5076 lines. 


[Note-—This Canon is the most perfect possible confirmation of 
the statement of the Doctrine of Addai. Also neither in Aphraates 
nor in the genuine works of St. Ephraim, both fourth-century Syriac 
authors, is there any reference to any Catholic Epistle.]5 


1 First edited in Studia Sinattica, i., by Mrs. Lewis (London, 1894), 
pp. 11-14, after a ninth-century MS. in the Convent of St. Catherine on 
Mount Sinai; cf. Zahn’s Grundriss, p. 86. 

2 The Assyrians regularly take πράξῖς as πρᾶξϊς (singular). 

8 This line is an obvious case of dittography and παραβλεψία. 

4 This line is accidentally omitted. 

5 See Burkitt, loc. cit. Ihave verified the statement for Aphraates myself, 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 227 


ΠῚ 


THE PESHITTA (VULGATE) SYRIAC REVISION OF THE 
NEW TESTAMENT (BETWEEN 411-35 a.p.) 


Contained the following books only :— 


The Four Gospels, Acts, the Epistle of James, the First 
Epistle of Peter, the First Epistle of John, fourteen Epistles 
of Paul.} 


Ῥ 


LETTER OF POPE INNOCENT? TO EXSUPERIUS OF 
TOULOUSE (405 a.p.) 


Qui uero libri recipiantur in canone, breuis? adnexus 
ostendit. Haec sunt quae desiderata moneri uoce uoluisti : 


[After Old Testament books.] 


Item Noui Testamenti : 
Kuangeliorum ITIT. 
Apostoli Pauli Epistulae XITI.4 
Epistulae Iohannis III. 
Epistulae Petri IT. 
Epistula Iudae. 
Kpistula [acobi. 
Actus Apostolorum. 
Apocalypsis Iohannis, 


cetera autem, quae uel sub nomine Mathiae siue Iacobi 
Minoris, vel sub nomine Petri et Iohannis, quae a quodam 
Leucio scripta sunt, uel sub nomine Andreae, quae a 
Xenocaride et Leonida philosophis, uel sub nomine Thomae, 
et siqua sunt alia, non solum repudianda, uerum etiam 
noueris esse damnanda. 


1 The catalogue given by Ebedjésu bar Bérika, metropolitan of Nisibis, is 
identical with this, except that at the end occurs the Diatessaron of Tatian 
(ct. Jacquier, Le Nowveau Testament dans l Eglise Chrétienne, tom. i. (Paris, 
1911), p. 437). 

2 After C. H. Turner's text in Journal of Theological Studies, vol. xiii. 
(1911-12), pp. 77-82. 

3 Breuts is here a noun=‘ epitome,’ and in this sense it makes diminutives 
breuiarius, brewiculus. 

4 Three MSS. (including the best) give xiii., others xiiii. 


228 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Q 


ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL IN THE 
COMMENTARY OF PELAGIUS (409-10 a.p. at Rome) 


Ad Romanos. 

Ad Corinthios I. 

Ad Corinthios 11. 

Ad Galatas. 

Ad Efesios. 

Ad Philippenses. 

Ad Thessalonicenses I. 
Ad Thessalonicenses II. 
Ad Colossenses. 

Ad Timotheum I. 

Ad Timotheum II. 

Ad Titum. 

Ad Philemonem. 


[Note.—This is the order we have already found in other authori- 
ties: see the note on Document F. For Pelagius it is not only 
attested by the only known MS. of the Commentary in its original 
form, Karlsruhe Augiensis cxix. (saec. ix. in.), but also (a) by certain 
MSS. of the Pseudo-Jerome expansion of the Commentary; (b) by 
the Cassiodorian recension of Pelagius, wrongly published under 
the name of Primasius ; (6) by the anonymous expansion of Pelagius, 
represented by the Veronese MS., Paris 653 (saec. ix. init.) ; and (d) 
by Sedulius Scottus’ Commentary (saec. ix. med.), based mainly on 
Pelagius.1] 


R 


EUCHERIUS, BISHOP OF LYONS, INSTRUCTIONES 
(BETWEEN 424 AND 455 A.D.) 


[In this work part is devoted to ‘ Quaestiones Difficiliores Noui 
Testamenti,’ and the difficulties are taken book by book. There is 
a presumption that he is giving the books in the order in which 
they occur in his copy of each separate section of the Bible. The 
Gospels, for example, are given in the familiar order. I copy the 
headings of chapters. } 


De Euangelio Matthei. 
De Marco. 


1 These statements are fuller and more correct than those in Study of 
Ambrosiaster, Ὁ. xii. 


΄ 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 229 


De Luca. 

De Iohanne. 

De Apostolo ad Romanos. 
I. Ad Corinthios. 

II. Ad Corinthios. 

Ad Ephesios. 

Ad Thessalonicenses, 

Ad Colosenses. 

I. Ad Timotheum. 

II. Ad Timotheum. 

Ad Hebreos. 

De Actibus Apostolorum. 
De Epistula L[acobi. 

De Epistula Iohannis. 
De Apocalypsi. 


[Note.—Not only is an adequate edition of Eucherius wanted, but 
@ thorough investigation of his biblical quotations as well.] 


THE SO-CALLED DECRETUM GELASIANUM DE LIBRIS 
RECIPIENDIS ET NON RECIPIENDIS (ὅστε Century) 


[Note.—This Decree, which MSS. attribute indiscriminately to 
Popes Damasus, Hormisdas, and Gelasius (sometimes also it is 
anonymous), is, according to Von Dobschiitz, the work of none of 
these, but a sixth-century production. I should agree.] 


Nunc uero de scripturis diuinis agendum est, quid 
uniuersalis catholica recipiat ecclesia vel quid uitare 
debeat. 

[After Old Testament books.] 


Item: Ordo Scripturarum Noui Testamenti, quem 
sancta et catholica Romana suscipit et ueneratur 
ecclesia. 

Kuangeliorum libri IIIT. :— 

sec. Matheum lib. I. 
sec. Marcum lib. I. 
sec. Lucam lb. I. 
sec. Iohannem lib. I. 
Item: Actuum Apostolorum lib. I, 


230 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Kpistulae Pauli Apostoli num. XITII. 
ad Romanos epist. I. 
ad Corinthios epist. IT. 
ad Ephesios epist. I. 
ad Thesalonicenses epist. II. 
ad Galatas epist. I. 
ad Philippenses epist. I. 
ad Colosenses epist. I. 
ad Timotheum epist. IT. 
ad Titum epist. I. 
ad Philemonem epist. I. 
ad Hebreos epist. I. 
Item: Apocalypsis Iohannis lib. I. 
Item: Canonicae Epistulae numero VII. 
Petri Apostoli epist. 11. 
Jacobi Apostoli epist. I. 
Iohannis Apostoli epist. I. 
Alterius Iohannis presbyteri epist. IT. 
Iudae Zelotis apostoli epist. I. 


Expiticir Canon Novi TESTAMENTI 


{Note—The Canon also contains regulations with regard to 
apocryphal books, but I do not attempt to print these. On every- 
thing connected with this decree consult the epoch-making work 
of E. von Dobschiitz, Das Decretum Gelasianum, u.s.w. (Leipzig, 
1912), just published. } 


T 


CASSIODORUS’ INSTITUTIO (BETWEEN 551 aNnD 5621) 


Cap. XIII. The Order of the Books accepted by St. Augus- 
tine is derived from L, and harmonises with it. 

Cap. XIIII. . . . scriptura sancta secundum antiquam 
translationem . . . [Old Testament]. Post haec sequuntur 


EKuangelia quattuor: id est— 
Mathei. 
Marci. . 


1 T give the dates according to Lehmann in Philologus for 1912, p. 295; 
Traube, Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen, bd. i. (Miinchen, 1909), p. 105, 
gives ‘between 546 and 555’; others date differently: for example, Dom 
Chapman, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels (Oxford, 1908), 
p. 39, decides for a date ‘about 560, or even later,’ and that ‘the aged author 
added to it from time to time.’ 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 231 


Lucae. 

Tohannis. 
Actus Apostolorum. 
Kpistulae : 

Petri ad Gentes. 

Tacobi. 

Iohannis ad Parthos, 
Epistulae Pauli: 

1ad Romanos I. 

ad Corinthios IT. 

ad Galatas I. 

ad Philippenses I. 

ad Colossenses I. 

ad Ephesios I. 

ad Thessalonicenses II, 

ad Timotheum II. 

ad Titum. 

ad Philemonem. 
Apocalypsis Iohannis. 


[Note.—Observe here the omission of Second Peter, Second and 
Third John, Jude and Hebrews. Seventy books of the Bible are 
reckoned in all, and forty-eight is the number given to the Old 
Testament. This leaves twenty-two for the New, exactly the 
number given above.] 


U 


IUNILIUS INSTITUTA REGULARIA DIUINAE LEGIS 
118. I. (PROBABLY 551 A.D.) ? 


Cap. III. In quibus libris diuina continetur historia ? 
. . . Euangeliorum IIIT., secundum Mattheum, secundum 
Marcum, secundum Lucam, secundum Johannem, Actuum 
Apostolorum I... . 


1 From this point the text is according to the Bamberg MS., H. J., iv. 15 
(saec. viii.) (see P. Corssen in Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie (1891), 
Ῥ. 20 of Sonderabdruck ; his data I have been able to verify by Mr. C. H. 
Turner’s kindness), which agrees exactly with the list in the Codex A miatinus 
(saec. viii. in.) of the Latin Bible (see Professor H. J. White in Studia 
Biblica, vol. ii. (Oxford, 1890), pp. 293 f.) 

21 borrow this from Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia (Freiburg-i.-B., 
1880). Junilius was an African by birth, and quaestor sacri palati at 
Constantinople. 


232 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Cap. IIII. In quibus libris prophetia suscipitur?... 
Ceterum de Iohannis Apocalypsi apud orientales admodum 
dubitatur..... 

Cap. VI. Qui libri ad simplicem doctrinam pertinent ? 
Canonici xvii., id est Eccles. lib. I. Epist. Pauli apostoli ; 
ad Rom. i., ad Corinth. ii., ad Gal. i., ad Ephes. i., ad 
Philip. i., ad Coloss. i., ad Thessal. ii., ad Timoth. ii., ad 
Titum i., ad Philem. i., ad Hebr. i.: beati Petri ad 
gentes prima, et beati Iohannis prima. Nulli alii libri 
ad simplicem doctrinam pertinent? Adiungunt quam 
plurimi quinque alias, quae apostolorum canonicae 
nuncupantur, id est Iacobi I., Petri secunda, Iudae una, 
Tohannis duae .... 

Cap. VII. De Auctoritate Scripturarum. Quo modo 
diuinorum librorum  consideratur auctoritas? Quia 
quaedam perfectae auctoritatis sunt, quaedam mediae, 
quaedam nullius. Quae sunt perfectae auctoritatis ? 
Quae canonica in singulis speciebus absolute numerauimus. 
Quae mediae? Quae adiungi a pluribus diximus. Quae 
nullius auctoritatis sunt? Reliqua omnia. In omnibus 
speciebus dictionis hae differentiae inueniuntur? In 
historia et simplici doctrina omnes:! nam in prophetia 
mediae auctoritatis libri praeter Apocalypsin non rep- 
periuntur nec in prouerbiali specie omnino cassata.? 


[Note.—This canon is influenced by the Antiochian scholar, 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (saec. iv.-v.).] 


V 
ISIDORE, BISHOP OF SEVILLE 


(a) In Lipros VetERis ac Novi TESTAMENTI PROHOEMIA ® 
(600 A.D. ?) 


1. Plenitudo Noui et Veteris Testamenti, quam in 
Canone Catholica recipit Ecclesia, iuxta uetustam priorum 
traditionem ista* est. ... (11) Hine occurrit Testa- 
mentum Nouum, cuius primum Euangeliorum libri sunt 

1 This punctuation is due to Westcott. 
2 This word appears to mean rejected, cast out. 


3 From Arevalo’s edition, tom. v. (Rome, 1802), pp. 190 ff. 
4 In the usual sense of later Latin=haec. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 233 


quattuor, scilicet Mattheus, Marcus, Lucas, et Johannes. 
Sequuntur deinde epistulae Pauli apostoli quattuordecim, 
id est, ad Romanos, ad Corinthios duae, ad Galatas, ad 
Ephesios, ad Philippenses, ad Thessalonicenses duae, ad 
Colossenses, ad Timotheum duae, ad Titum uero et ad Phile- 
monem et ad Hebraeos singulae. (12) Epistulae 1 quoque 
Iohannis apostoli tres, Petri duae, Iudae et [acobi singulae. 
(13) Actus etiam Apostolorum et Apocalypsis Iohannis. 
Fiunt ergo in ordine utriusque testamenti libri septuaginta 
et duo. (14) Haec sunt enim noua et welera, quae de 
thesauro domini proferuntur,? e quibus cuncta sacramen- 
torum mysteria reuelantur. Hi sunt duo seraphin, qui in 
confessione sanctae trinitatis iugiter decantantes?* tris 
hagios* hymnum erumpunt. (15) Haec etiam duae oliuae 
in Zacharia, quae a deztris et sinistris lampadis adstant,® 
atque pinguedine, et splendore spiritus sancti totum orbem 
doctrinae claritate inluminant. (16) Hae litterae sacrae, 
hi libri integri numero et auctoritate: aliud cum istis 
nihil est comparandum. Quidquid extra hos fuerit, inter 
haec sancta et diuina nullatenus est recipiendum. 


(6) Erymotoai1aEe: Liser VI.; De Lisris er Orricus 
ECCLESIASTICIS (BEFORE 636 A.D.) 


Cap. i. ὃ 10. In Nouo Testamento duo sunt ordines. 
Primus euangelicus, in quo sunt Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas 
et Iohannes. Secundus apostolicus, in quo sunt Paulus 
in quattuordecim Epistolis, Petrus in duabus, lohannes in 
tribus, [acobus et Iudas in singulis, Actus Apostolorum et 
Apocalypsin ® Iohannis. 

Cap. 11. §§ 34-49 also of interest in this connexion. 

Cap. il. ὃ 45. Ad Hebraeos autem Epistola plerisque 


1 At this point Westcott (p. 584) prefers to follow certain MSS. of the 
British Museum. Isidore varies in the order in which he gives the Catholic 
epistles. 

2 Cf. Matt. xiii. 52. 8 Certantes (B.M. MSS.). 

4 The reference is to Isa. vi. 3. For the teaching of the passage cf. Hier. 
Epist. 184, 7, §5. The works of Isidore are (from first to last) a compilation 
from earlier authors. 

5 Cf. Zech. iv. 11-14. 

6 As indeclinable nom. ; ef. pentecosten used for all cases (Marx’s Filaster, 
index, p. 166; Souter’s Pseudo-Augustini Qwaestiones, index, p. 563; 
Turner’s Ecclesiae Occtdentalis Monumenta, i. p. 152). 


234 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Latinis eius esse incerta est propter dissonantiam sermonis, 
eandemque alii Barnaban conscripsisse, alii a Clemente 
scriptam fuisse suspicantur. 

Cap. ii. §§ 50-53. Hi sunt scriptores sacrorum librorum, 
qui per spiritum sanctum loquentes ad eruditionem nostram 
et praecepta uiuendi et credendi regulam conscripserunt. 
Praeter haec alia uolumina apocrypha nuncupantur. 
Apocrypha autem dicta, id est secreta, quia in dubium 
ueniunt.t Est enim eorum occulta origo nec patet patri- 
bus, a quibus usque ad nos auctoritas ueracium scriptu- 
rarum certissima et notissima successione peruenit. In eis 
apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua ueritas, tamen propter 
multa falsa nulla est in eis canonica auctoritas ; quae recte 
a prudentibus iudicantur non esse eorum credenda, quibus 
adscribuntur. Nam multa et sub nominibus prophetarum, 
et recentiora sub nominibus apostolorum ab _ haereticis 
proferuntur, quae omnia sub nomine apocryphorum 
auctoritate canonica diligenti examinatione remota sunt. 


Ww 


A SEVENTH-CENTURY LIST FROM CODEX VATICANUS 
REGINAE, 199 (Sazc. XII.) 


Duobus sine dubio modis tota scriptura intellegenda est. 
primus itaque modus est intellegendi ut qui sunt? libri 
qui scribendi legendi retinendi sunt? ecclesia catholica 
intellegat. secundus autem modus est ut qui sunt? libri, 
qui nec legendi nec scribendi nec recipiendi sunt sciat. 

Ordo itaque diuinorum librorum, quos ecclesia catholica 
scribere legere recipere® debet, secundum traditionem 
sanctorum uirorum et orthodoxorum patrum, hoc est 
Gelasii papae cum LXX. episcopis, eruditissimis uiris, 
in sede apostolica urbis Romae, et secundum traditionem 
sancti Athanasii episcopi Alexandriae 4 ciuitatis. 

Hoc est uetus testamentum. .. . 


1 This view, of course, is absurd. 

2 Read sint. 8 Note the legal ring about the unconnected words. 

4 Certainly read Alexandrinae (for the corruption compare the critical 
note on Ps.-Aug., Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test., cxiiii. 25, p. 314, 25 of my 
edition). 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 235 


Veteris testamenti libri simul 
numero uersuum LX XIICCCXLVIII. (ἐ.6. 72,348) 
Noui testamenti libri hi sunt. 
IIIT. euangelia qui ex magistrorum 
nomine sunt nominati : 
Matheus hebraice, Donatus 
latine dicitur, numero 
uersuum IIDC. (t.e. 2600) 
Marcus Excelsus interpre- 
tatur, numero uersuum IDCC. (t.e. 1700) 
Lucas iste Consurgens in- 
terpretatur, numero ver- 
suum IIDCCC. (¢.e. 2800) 
Iohannes Gratia Dei inter- 
pretatur, numero _ ver- 


suum IICCC. (ἐ.6. 2300) 
Actus Apostolorum, numero ver- 
suum ITDCCC. (#.e. 2800) 
Epistulae apostolorum canonicae 
VII., numero uersuum CCXX. 
KEpistulae Pauli apostoli XIIII. 
numero uersuum VCI. (¢.e. 5101) 


Apocalipsis Johannis  apostoli, 
quae interpretatur Reuelatio, 


numero uersuum IDCCCL. (i.e. 1850) 
Libri simul noui testamenti, nu- 
mero uersuum XXCCCXX. (t.e. 20,320) 


Utriusque testamenti simul libri, 
numero uersuum CCIIDCLXVIII. (z.e. 202,668) 


{ Note.—As Mr. C. H. Turner, whose edition I am kindly permitted 
to reprint above (Journ. Theol. Studies, vol. ii. p. 239 ff.), has pointed 
out, this list is related to Document N. In its present form, how- 
ever, W cannot be earlier than the seventh century, as the mention 
of Pope Gelasius and the likeness to Isidore’s language show. The 
reference to Athanasius may be due to knowledge of Document E, 
as the compiler is hardly likely to have got his information about 
Hebrew except from a Greek source, and was therefore presumably 
acquainted with Greek. Furthermore, the stichometry has, as Mr. 
Turner has pointed out, got Greek analogies. The Latin definitions 
of the Evangelists’ names are also to be found in the prologue to 
Pseudo-Jerome on the Four Gospels. ] 


236 THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


x 


ACTS OF COUNCIL OF TRENT (CONCILIUM 
TRIDENTINUM) (1546) 


Sacrosancta oecumenica et generalis Tridentina synodus, 
in spiritu sancto legitime congregata . . . orthodoxorum 
patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam veteris quam 
novi testamenti, cum utriusque unus deus sit auctor, nec 
non traditiones ipsas tum ad fidem tum ad mores perti- 
nentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo vel a spiritu sancto 
dictatas et continua successione in ecclesia catholica con- 
servatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et 
veneratur. Sacrorum vero librorum indicem huic decreto 
adscribendum censuit, ne cui dubitatio suboriri possit, 
quinam sint qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur. Sunt vero 
infra scripti...([Old Testament and Apocrypha]... 
Testamenti novi, quatuor Evangelia, . . . Actus Aposto- 
lorum a Luca evangelista conscripti. Quatuordecim 
epistolae Pauli apostoli, ad Romanos. . . ad Hebraeos. 
Petri apostoli duae, Joannis apostoli tres, Jacobi apostoli! 
una, Judae apostoli una, et Apocalypsis Joannis apostoli. 

Siquis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis 
partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et 
in veteri Vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et 
canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens 
et prudens contempserit, ANATHEMA SIT... . 


DECRETUM DE EDITIONE ET USU SACRORUM LIBRORUM 


Insuper eadem sacrosancta synodus, considerans non 
parum utilitatis accedere posse ecclesiae dei, si ex omnibus 
Latinis editionibus quae circumferuntur sacrorum librorum, 
quaenam pro authentica habenda sit, innotescat, statuit 
et declarat, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae 
longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa Ecclesia probata est, in 
publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et 
expositionibus pro authentica? habeatur et ut nemo illam 
rejicere quovis pretextu audeat vel presumat. Praeterea 

1 Note the addition of ‘apostoli’ here, which does not imply belief in the 


authorship of the son of Zebedee. 
2 Cf. 2 Peter iii. 16.—A. 5. 


SELECTED DOCUMENTS 237 


ad coercenda petulantia ingenia decernit, ut nemo suae 
prudentiae innixus in rebus fidei et morum ad aedificati- 
onem doctrinae Christianae pertinentium sacram scripturam 
ad suos sensus contorquens,! contra eum sensum, quem 
tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius est judicare 
de vero sensu et interpretatione scripturarum sanctarum, 
aut etiam contra unanimem consensum patrum ipsam 
scripturam sacram interpretari audeat, etiam si huiusmodi 
interpretationes nullo unquam tempore in lucem edendae 
forent. Qui contravenerint, per ordinarios? declarentur 
et poenis a jure statutis puniantur. 


[Note.—Authentica is to be taken in relation to other Latin 
translations which were in circulation. not to the original Hebrew 
or Greek. It practically means ‘ authoritative,’ and that it gives 
substantially the original text, and contains no error against faith 
or morals. See Jacquier, Nouveau Testament, etc., tom. i. pp. 
390 ff. ] 


1 Cf. 2 Peter iii. 16.—A. S. 
2 J.e. the Bishops, The Church of England still uses the expression tie 
Ordinary.’—A. S, 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 


THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


THE best works on the textual criticism of the New Testament are 
probably the following :—Richard Simon, Histoire Critique du Texte 
du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam, 1689), Histoire Critique des 
Versions du N.T. (ibid. 1690), Nouvelles Observations sur le Texte et 
les Versions du N.T. (ibid. 1695); Prolegomena to Mill’s edition of 
the Greek N.T. (Oxford, 1707, and later); Preface to Lachmann’s 
edition of the Greek and Latin New Testament, vol. i. (Berlin, 
1842); Introduction to Westcott and Hort’s New Testament in 
the Original Greek (Cambr. and Lond., 1881, best edition, 1896) ; 
C. R. Gregory, Teaxtkritik des Neuen Testamentes (Leipzig, 1900-9), 
a vast repertory of material, Canon and Text of the New Testament 
(Edinburgh. 1908), considerably improved in the Hinleitung in das 
Neue Testament (Leipzig, 1909), works which yield to none in the 
interesting way they are written; H. v. Soden, Die Schriften des 
Neuen Testaments in ihrer dltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt 
auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, I Teil, Untersuchungen (Berlin, 
1902-10), over two thousand large pages, a work of the greatest 
importance, which will have an incalculable influence on future 
editions of the text; F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criti- 
cism of the New Testament (London, 1901, 2nd ed., 1912), by one of 
our greatest authorities on papyri and early vellum MSS.; Eb. 
Nestle, Hinfiihrung in das Griechische Neue Testament (3te umgear- 
beitete Auflage, mit 12 Handschriften-Tafeln) (Gottingen, 1909), 
at once the most up-to-date and useful for all except specialists, 
and not to be neglected even by them, antiquating the English trans- 
lation of the second edition (London, 1901); nor must the very 
important articles in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, vol. v. 
(J. O. F. Murray), Encyclopedia Biblica (F. C. Burkitt, containing 
a large amount of first-hand research, and always valuable), and 
Murray’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Ὁ. H. Turner: a model of 
succinctness and clearness) be neglected, or the thoroughly readable 
articles of C. H. Turner in the Journal of Theological Studies, vols. 
x. and i (1908-10). 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 239 


CHAPTER I 


Principles of Textual Criticism: works enumerated above; also 
W. M. Lindsay, An Introduction to Latin Textual Emendation 
(London, 1896); L. Havet, Manuel de Critique Verbale appliquée 
aux Textes Latins (Paris, 1911). 

For an example where original and copy both survive, instructive 
for study : see F. W. Shipley in the American Journal of Archeology, 
vol. vii. (1903), pp. 1-25, 57-97, 105-28 (two MSS. of part of Livy). 

Paleographical Works: Sir E. M. Thompson, Handbook to 
Greek and Latin Paleography (2nd ed., London, 1894), to be 
compared with later works, especially as regards papyri (the 
Clarendon Press announces a new work by him); L. Traube, 
Nomina Sacra, Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kiirzung 
(Munich, 1907), Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen, Bd. i. (Munich, 
1909), Bd. ii. (cbtd. 1910, dated 1911); F. G. Kenyon, Paleography 
of Greek Papyrt (Oxford, 1899); U. Wilcken, Archiv fiir Papyrus- 
forschung (begun Leipzig, 1901, now in fifth volume), a journal for 
students of papyri, of masterly comprehensiveness, edited by the 
greatest living papyrologist; articles by Kenyon in Hastings’ © 
Dictionary of the Bible, and by Deissmann in the Encyclopedia 
Biblica. Best collection of texts in Mitteis and Wilcken, Grundziige 
und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 2 Bde. (Leipzig, 1911): more 
readily accessible is G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, 
with translations and notes (Cambridge, 1910); sacred texts col- 
lected in C. Wessely, Les Plus Anciens Monuments du Christianisme 
écrits sur Papyrus (= Patrologia Orientalis, iv. 2) (Paris, 1907). 

Complete photographs of MSS. are generally referred to under 
the MSS. themselves: the following collections of photographs of 
single pages of various MSS. are only one or two of a great many 
now accessible: P. F. de’ Cavalieri and 1. Lietzmann, Specimina 
Codicum Graecorum Vaticanorum (Bonn, 1910), 50 photographs, 
price six shillings; W. Schubart, Papyri Graecae Berolinenses (Bonn, 
1911), same number and price; F. Ehrle and P. Liebaert, Specimina 
Codicum Latinorum Vaticanorum (Bonn, 1912), same number and 

rice. 
On contractions: T. W. Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek 
Manuscripts (Oxford, 1889); Traube, Nomina Sacra (above); the 
scientific study of Latin abbreviations, begun by Traube, is being 
carried on especially by W. M. Lindsay, Contractions in Early Latin 
Minuscule MSS. (Oxford, 1908), Early Irish Minuscule Script 
(Oxford, 1910), and articles in the Zentralblatt fiir Bibliothekswesen 
for 1909 and later. 
CHAPTER II 


Kusebian Canons printed in the later editions of Nestle’s Novum 
Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart), and elsewhere; the Latin, for 


240 TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


example, in White’s Novum Testamentum Latine, ed. minor (Oxford 
and London, 1912 [dated 1911]), pp. xvii. ff.). 

On Marcion’s edition of St. Paul’s Epistles, see the literature on 
Document A. 

On Euthalius, J. A. Robinson, Huthaliana (Cambridge, 1895) ; 
H. v. Soden, Die Schriften d. N.T., 1 Teil (Berl. 1902), pp. 637-82 ; 
J. A. Robinson, in Journal of Theological Studies, vi. (1904-5), pp. 
87 ff.; and further literature in Nestle, op. cit., p. 209. 

On ‘bilingual MSS., consult J. M. Heer in Oriens Christianus, 
Neue Serie, ii. 1 (1912), pp. 9 ff. 


CHAPTER III 


Lists, and sometimes descriptions, of Greek MSS. of the New 
Testament (parts or whole) in Gregory’s T'extkritik, pp. 16-478, 1017- 
1292, 1363-76, 1418-84; H. v. Soden, Die Schriften d. N.T., Bd. i., 
pp. 102-289; C. R. Gregory, Die griechischen Handschriften d. 
Neuen Testaments (Leipzig, 1908), an account of his revised numera- 
tion: a select list of those cited in the apparatus, with Gregory’s 
and Von Soden’s numbers, dates, contents and libraries where 
preserved, in my Novum Testamentum Graece (Oxonii, 1910), 
pp. vii-xv. Newly discovered MSS. in Gregory, Vorschlage fiir 
eine kritische Ausgabe des griechischen Neuen Testaments (Leipzig, 
1911), pp. 34 ff.; T. Kluge, Zeitschrift f. d. neut. Wiss., xiii. (1912), 
pp. 267 ff. 

Photograph of p! in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. i. (Oxford, 1898), 
plate 1; Nestle, Hinfiihrung, Taf. 11: p'* in New Paleographical 
Society, facsimiles. 

Complete photograph of B, published by Hoepli (Milan, 1904). 

Complete photograph of x (N.T. and Barnabas), with intro- 
duction by Lake (Oxford, 1911), £8, 8s. ‘An Examination of some 
Omissions of the Codex Sinaiticus in St. John’s Gospel,’ by H. S. 
Cronin, in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. xiii. (1911-12), 
pp. 563-71. 

Complete photograph of A (N.T. and Clementine meant in 
reduced size (London, 1909), £1, 10s. 

C, edited by Tischendorf (1843). 

D, well edited by Scrivener (Cambridge, 1864): complete photo- 
graph (Cambridge, 1899), £12, 12s. Complete list of readings of 
D most easily obtained in E. Nestle, Novi Testamenti Graeci Supple- 
mentum (Lipsiae, 1896). Burkitt in Journal of Theological Studies, 
vol. iii. (1900-1), pp. 501-13; J. Rendel Harris, A Study of ‘ Codex 
Bezae’ (Cambridge, 1891); F. H. Chase (Bishop of Ely), The Old 
Syriac Element in the Text of ‘ Codex Bezae’ (London, 1893); Lake 
and Brightman in Journal of Theological Studies, i. (1909-10), 
pp. 441-54. 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 


Dl edited by Tischendorf (Lipsiae, 1852); see also P. Corssen 
progr. (Kiel, 1887, 9). 

E, edited by Tischendorf (1870). 

H, some leaves (or offsets) photographed in K. Lake, Facsimiles 
of the Athos Fragments of Codex H of the Pauline Epistles (Oxford, 
1905), Omont in Notices et Extraits des MSS. dela Bibl. Nat., t. xxxiii. 
(Paris, 1889), pp. 141-92; J. Armitage Robinson, Huthaliana 
(Cambridge, 1895). 

L, edited by Tischendorf (1846). 

N, edited by H. 8S. Cronin, Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus 
(Cambridge, 1899). 

O, edited by H. Omont in Notices et Extraits, t. xxxxvi. and 
separately (Paris, 1901). 

2, edited by O. von Gebhardt (Leipzig, 1883): cf. Sanday in 
Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Oxford, 1885), pp. 103-12. 

®, edited by Batiffol (Paris, 1886). 

W, see Gregory, Das Freer Logion (Versiiche und Entwiirfe, i.) 
(Leipzig, 1908). 


CHAPTER IV 


Oxtp-LaTIN VERSION(S): Greek as the official language of the 
Roman East: R. Cagnat, Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas 
pertinentes (Paris, 1901 ff., in progress); Viereck, Sermo Graecus 
quo Senatus Populusque Romanus... ust sunt... (Gottingen, 
1888); Magie, De Romanorum Iuris Publici Sacrique Vocabulis 
Sollemnibus in Graecum Sermonem Conversis (Halle-a-S., 1904) ; 
L. Hahn, Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-rémischen Osten 
(Leipzig, 1906). Extensive bibliography on the use of Greek 
throughout the Roman world in the notes to chap. i. of Zahn’s 
Introduction to the New Testament (Eng. tr.) (Edinburgh, 1910). 

Roman Christian Africa: Dom H. Leclercq, L’ Afrique Chrétienne, 
2 vols. (Paris, 1904). Its literature: P. Monceaux, Histoire 
Initeraire de 0 Afrique Chrétienne, 4 vols. published (Paris, 1901 ff., 
in progress). Biblical quotations of African Fathers, see chap. vii. 
and bibliography. 

‘African’ MSS.: k: edited (with photograph) by Wordsworth, 
Sanday and White in Old-Latin Biblical Texts, vol. ii. (Oxford, 1886) ; 
valuable gleanings by Burkitt and Turner in the Journal of Theo- 
logical Studies, vol. v. (1903-4), pp. 88-107; re-edited by Hans von 
Soden, Das Lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians 
(Leipzig, 1909); palzographical notes in L. Traube, Nomina Sacra 
(Munich, 1907), pp. 138 ff. e: edited by Tischendorf (Leipzig, 
1847) ; see also J. H. Todd, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 
vol. iii. (1846); H. Linke in the Sitzungsberichte of the Bavarian 
Academy, phil.-hist. Cl., 1893 (2), pp. 281-7; re-edited in Hans von 
Soden, op. cit. h: edited (with photograph) by 8S. Berger, Le 

ῳ 


242 TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Palimpseste de Fleury (Paris, 1889); re-edited (with photograph) 
by E. 5. Buchanan, Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. V. (Oxford, 1907), 
and Hans von Soden, op. cit. ; see also Journal of Theological Studies, 
vol. ix. (1907-8), pp. 98-100 (Buchanan), xi. (1909-10), pp. 563 f. 
(Souter). r: edited by Ziegler, Italafragmente der paulinischen 
Briefe (Marburg, 1876): further portions by Ed. von Wolfflin in the 
Sitzungsberichte of the Bavarian Academy for 1893 (2), pp. 253-80, 
and by G. Morin in the Revue Bénédictine, xxviii. (1911), pp. 221-7. 

European MSS.: a: edited by Irico (1748), Bianchini, Hvan- 
geliarium Quadruplea (1749) (whose edition is reprinted in Migne, 
Patrologia Latina, vol. xii.). A new edition will be produced by 
the Vatican Commission for the revision of the Vulgate (see ‘ Note 
upon the present state of the Vercelli Gospels’ in The Revision of 
the Vulgate ; Second Report of Work Done (St. Anselm’s, Rome, 
1911), pp. 20-8). Other references in the text. b: edited by 
E. 5. Buchanan in Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. VI. (Oxford, 1911). 
Cf. Burkitt in Journal of Theological Studies, vol. i. (1899-1900), 
p. 134. Photographs of pages in Buchanan and in Monumenta 
Palaeographica Sacra, by F. Carta, C. Cipolla, and C. Frati (Turin, 
1899), tav. ii. and p. 2. Other references in the text. ff: edited 
by E. 5. Buchanan in Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No.V. (Oxford, 1907) ; 
photograph there; see also Buchanan in Journal of Theological 
Studies, vol. vii. (1905-6), pp. 99 ff., 236 ff. q: edited by H. J. 
White in Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. III. (Oxford, 1888); photo- 
graph there and in A. Chroust, Monumenta Palaeographica, i. Ser. 
vi. Lief., Taf. 1 (Munich, 1902). See also De Bruyne in the Revue 
Bénédictine, xxviii. (1911), pp. 75-80. f: text printed in Words- 
worth and White’s Nowum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christe 
Latine, tom. i. (Oxonii, 1889-98) under the Vulgate. See Burkitt, 
Journal of Theological Studies, vol. i. (1899-1900), pp. 129-34, xi. 
(1909-10), pp. 611-13; F. Kauffmann, ‘Beitrage zur Quellenkritik der 
gotischen Bibeliibersetzung,’ in the Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie, 
xxxii. (1899), pp. 305-35; J. Draseke, ‘Der Goten Sunja und Frithila 
Praefatio zum Codex Brixianus,’ in the Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaft- 
liche Theologie, L. (1907), pp. 107-17; W. Streitberg, Die Gotische Bibel 
(Heidelberg, 1908), pp. στ. ff. giess: published (with photo- 
graph) in the Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, xi. 
(1910), pp. 1-38 (and separately), by P. Glaue and K. Helm, re- 
viewed by Burkitt, l.c. gig: inaccurately edited by J. Belsheim 
(Christiania, 1879), recollated for Wordsworth and White in Acts 
and Apocalypse by H. Karlsson (see W.-W.’s edition of Acts), and 
in Acts by H. Hilgenfeld (see his edition of Acts, published in 1899). 
Other literature in the text. p: edited for the Old-Latin por- 
tions of Acts by S. Berger, in Notices et Extraits, xxxv. (Paris, 1895), 
and separately ; the Catholic Epistles, edited by E. 5. Buchanan, 
in Journal of Theological Studies, xii. (1910-11), pp. 497-534. 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 243 


Gg: complete photograph published by Hiersemann (ed. Reichardt) 
(Leipzig, 1909). ff: edited by Bishop Wordsworth in Studia Biblica, 
vol. i. (Oxford, 1885), pp. 113-50; cf. Dr. Sanday in the same volume, 
pp. 233-63; re-edited by A. Staerk, Les Manuscrits Latins du V* au 
XIII? siécle conservés ala Bibliotheque Impériale de Saint-Pétersbourg. 
tome i. (St. Petersburg, 1910), pp. 132 ff. (photograph of first page 
in vol. ii. plate lix.). m: edited by F. Weihrich in the Corpus 
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. xii. (Vindob, 1887). A 
valuable restoration and study of the Old-Latin texts of the Johan- 
nine Epistles (in which the evidence of Ps.-Aug. Quaest. is un- 
fortunately omitted) in A. E. Brooke’s Johannine Epistles (Intern. 
Crit. Comm.) (Edinburgh, 1912), pp. 197-223. 

LaTIN (VULGATE) : article ἡ Vulgate ’ in Hastings’ Dictionary of the 
Bible, by Prof. H. J. White; 5. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate... 
(Paris, 1893). Critical edition with copious apparatus, introduction 
and epilogue (Gospels and Acts published, Romans about to be 
published) is Wordsworth and White’s Nowwm Testamentum Domini 
Nostri Iesu Christi Latine .. . (Oxonii, 1889-1905); smaller 
critical edition with select apparatus of whole New Testament, by 
H. J. White, Nouum Testamentum Latine secundum Editionem 
Sancti Hieronym .. . (Oxonii, 1912 [dated 1911]) (published also 
by British and Foreign Bible Society) ; an exact edition of the Sixto- 
Clementine Vulgate N.T., with the readings of Wordsworth and 
White, as far as published, and with other valuable critical material, 
is Eb. Nestle, Novum Testamenium Latine (obtainable also with the 
Greek on the opposite page) (Stuttgart, 1906, and later). Other 
literature is referred to in the text. Gutenberg’s 42-line Bible is 
being produced in complete facsimile by H. Welter, Paris (£30), as 
well as by the Insel-Verlag in Leipzig (£35). A most suggestive 
work is Dom John Chapman’s Notes on the Early History of the 
Vulgate Gospels (Oxford, 1908). On the Pius x. Revision see above 
undera. Interesting works on MSS., which are neither pure Vulgate 
nor pure Old-Latin, are H. J. Lawlor, Chapters on the Book of Mulling 
(Edinburgh, 1897); H. C. Hoskier, The Golden Latin Gospels, etc. 
(New York, 1910, privately printed); Concerning the Genesis of the 
Versions of the New Testament, vol. ii. (London, 1911); J. M. Heer, 
Evangelium Gatianum (Freiburg-i.-B., 1910); E. S. Buchanan, The 
Codex Harleianus 1772 of the Epistles and the Apocalypse (London, 
1912). Codex Amiatinus, edited by Tischendorf (Leipzig, 1850 
and 1854); on the history of the MS. consult H. J. White in Studia 
Biblica, vol. ii. (Oxford, 1890), pp. 273-308 [the orthography, 
Dr. Sanday, pp. 309-24], and P. Corssen in Jahrbuch fiir protes- 
tantische Theologie for 1891, as well as Dom J. Chapman in the 
Revue Bénédictine for July and October 1911. Codex Fuldensis 
edited by E. Ranke (Marburg, 1868), photograph in K. Scherer, Die 
Codices Bonifatiani in der Landesbibliothek zu Fulda (Fulda, 1905). 


244 TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Syriac Versions: Tatian’s Diatessaron: The Earliest Life of 
Christ, etc., by J. Hamlyn Hill (Edinburgh, 1893, cheaper edition, 
1911); translated also by H. W. Hogg in Ante-Nicene Christian 
Library, additional volume (Edinburgh, 1897); see more literature in 
Nestle, Hinfiihrung (3rd ed.), p. 119, and compare chapter vii.; add 
now S. Euringer in Bardenhewer’s Biblische Studien X VII. (2) (Freib.- 
i.-B., 1912). Ephraim’s Commentary on the Diatessaron, translated 
into Latin (Venice, 1893). The Old-Syriac Version: readings of 
both MSS. together, Curetonian as text, Sinaitic as apparatus, in 
Burkitt’s Evangelion da-Mepharreshé, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1904), 
with introduction, translation, and notes, indispensable to the 
student of New Testament textual criticism; Sinaitic as text, 
Curetonian as apparatus, in the edition of Mrs. A. 8. Lewis (London, 
1910); valuable also is A. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien 
nach threm dltesten bekannten Texte, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1897-1911, last 
volume posthumous), with its copious textual notes. A. Hjelt in 
Zahn’s Forschungen, Bd. vii. (1) (Leipzig, 1903), contends for the 
priority of the Old-Syriac over the Diatessaron. The Peshitta 
Revision: edited by Widmanstadt (Vienna, 1555), by Leusden and 
Schaaf (Lugd. Bat., 1709), by Pusey and Gwilliam (Gospels only) 
(Oxford, 1901). The older view of the Peshitta is upheld by, 
amongst others, Burgon and Miller in The Traditional Teat of the 
Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established (London, 1896), The Causes 
of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London, 
1896), and in other works. The Philoxenian Version: Apoca- 
lypse, edited by John Gwynn (Dublin, 1897) ; Second Peter, Second 
and Third John, Jude, edited by John Gwynn (Text and Trans- 
lation Society) (London, 1909). The Harclean Revision: edited 
by Joseph White (Oxford, 1778-1803) ; R. L. Bensly, The Harklean 
Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. xi. 28-xiii. 25, now 
edited for the first time (Cambridge, 1889) ; cf. also Ad. Hilgenfeld’s 
edition of Acts (Berlin, 1899), and A. V. Valentine Richards’ review 
of it in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. i. (1899-1900), 
pp. 606 ff. The Palestinian Version: The Palestinian Syriac 
Lectionary of the Gospels re-edited . . ., by A. S. Lewis and M. D. 
Gibson (London, 1899); F. C. Burkitt, ‘The Palestinian Syriac 
Lectionary’ (Journal of Theological Studies, vi. (1904-5), pp. 91-8); 
ef. also Nestle, Hinf.*, pp. 120 f. 


CHAPTER V 


On the Ptolemies’ libraries, etc., see F. Susemihl, Geschichte der 
griechischen Lntteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, especially Bd. ii. 
(Leipzig, 1892), chap. 38, and Bd. i. (Leipzig, 1892), pp. 337-44. 

Egyptian Versions: Guidi in Géttingen Nachrichten for 1889, 
pp. 49 ff., quoted by Burkitt, ‘ Text and Versions,’ in Encyclopedia 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 


Biblaca; Leipoldt, Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, Bd. i. (Leipzig, 
1907), pp. 81 f.; Forbes Robinson, ‘ Egyptian Versions,’ in Hast- 
ings’ Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. pp. 668-73. 

Sahidic Version: Gospels edited in The Coptic Version of the New 
Testament in the Southern Dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and 
Thebatc .. . [by Rev. G. W. Horner], 3 vols. (Oxford, 1911); the 
rest of the New Testament must meantime be sought in C. G. 
Woide and H. Ford (Oxford, 1799); P. Balestri, Sacrorum Biblio- 
rum Fragmenta Copto-sahidica Musei Borgiant, vol. iii. (Rome, 1904), 
and elsewhere; great part of the Apocalypse in H. Goussen, Studia 
Theologica, fasc. i. (Leipzig, 1897). 

Bohairice Version: edited in The Coptic Version of the New Testa- 
ment in the Northern Dialect, otherwise called Memphitic and Bo- 
hairic . . . [by Rev. G. W. Horner], 4 vols. (Oxford, 1898-1905). 

Gothic Version; Die gotische Bibel, herausg. v. Wilhelm Streit- 
berg, 1 Teil, Der gotische Text u. seine griechische Vorlage u. 8. w. 
(Heidelberg, 1908); see also the bibliography to Chapter Iv. under 
f and giess. 


CHAPTER VI 


Armenian Versions: N.T. edited by J. Zohrab (Venice, 1789) ; 
both forms of the Apocalypse by F. C. Conybeare (Text and Trans- 
lation Society) (London, 1907); cf. J. R. Harris, Four Lectures on 
the Western Text (Cambridge, 1894); J. A. Robinson, Huthaliana 
(Cambridge, 1895), pp. 72-98; F. C. Conybeare in the American 
Journal of Theology, Oct. 1897; F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion da- 
Mepharreshé, ii. (Cambridge, 1904), p. 160. Variants of the Ar- 
menian in the Gospels are given direct from the original Armenian 
(ed. Zohrab) by Horner in his edition of the Sahidic Version. On 
the Etschmiadzin MS. (of a.p. 986), which mentions ‘ the presbyter 
Ariston,’ see F. C. Conybeare in The Expositor, 1893, ii. pp. 241 ff. 
(photograph of the page in Nestle, Hinf.3, Taf. 9). More literature 
in Nestle, Hinf.*, p. 157. 

Ethiopic Version: edition of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society, from which readings are taken direct in Horner’s edition 
of the Sahidic Version. Literature in Nestle, Hinf.’, pp. 155 ἢ. I 
borrow the following references to recent literature from J. M. Heer 
in Oriens Christianus for 1912, p. 24, n. 2; Hoberg-Kaulen, Hin- 
leitung in die Heilige Schrift, 1® (Freiburg, 1911), pp. 233 f.; Litt- 
mann, Geschichte der dthiopischen Interatur. (Die Interaturen des 
Ostens in Hinzeldarstellungen, vii. 2) (Leipzig), pp. 223 ff.; A. Baum- 
stark, Die christlichen Literaturen des Orients (Sammlung Géschen), 
ii. (Leipzig, 1911), pp. 39 ff. ; J. Guidi, Le Traduzioni degli Evangelist 
in Arabo ed in Etiopico (Rome, 1888). 

Georgian Version: edited Moscow, 1743, and later: many MSS. 
not yet used, cf. ‘Georgian Manuscripts at the Iberian Monastery 


246 TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


on Mount Athos,’ by O. Wardrop, in the Journal of Theological 
Studies, vol. xii. (1910-11), pp. 593 ff. Other literature in the text 
above. 

Arabic Version: edited Calcutta, 1816: with Bohairic, by 
Tattam and Cureton (London, 1847-52): Gospels by P. de Lagarde 
(Leipzig, 1864): facsimile of Arabic-Latin leaf in Ehrle and 
Liebaert’s Specimina (Bonn, 1912). 


CHAPTER VII 


Most of the literature is given in the chapter itself: add Ll. J. M. 
Bebb in Studia Biblica, vol. ii. (Oxford, 1890), pp. 195 ff.; on 
Curysostom, Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon 
of the New Testament (4th ed., London, 1875), p. xxxii. ἢ. 1; 8. K. 
Gifford, Pauli Epistolas qua forma legerit Joannes Chrysostomus 
(Halle, 1902); J. A. Nairn, appendix to his edition of the De 
Sacerdotio of St. John Chrysostom (Cambridge, 1906); on TER- 
TULLIAN, H. Ronsch, Das Neue Testament Tertullians (Leipzig, 
1871); on Novatran, Burkitt, ‘ Texts and Versions’ in the Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica. In general, consult the literature cited under 
Chapter Iv., with reference to particular MSS. referred to in the 
text. 


CHAPTER VIII 


On printed editions of the Greek New Testament, Nestle, Hin- 
fiihrung (ed. 2 or 3), chap. i., where much literature is given; a 
standard work is Ed. Reuss, Bibliotheca Now T'estamenti Graeci 
(Braunschweig, 1872). There are many special monographs on 
particular editions, e.g. H. C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation 
of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604 (London, 1890), Ap- 
pendix B and Appendix C (cf. Nestle in Journal of Theological 
Studies, vol. xi. (1909-10), pp. 564 ff.); J. R. Harris, ‘Some Notes 
on the Verse Division of the New Testament’ (in the Journal of 
Biblical Interature for 1900). Further bibliography in the text. 


CHAPTER ΙΧ 


See the bibliography to Chapter1. Add J. Gow, Companion o 
School Classics (2nd ed., London, 1889), pp. 1-69; J. P. Postgate in 
Sandys’ Companion to Latin Studies (Cambridge, 1910), pp. 791-805. 
On the conclusion of St. Mark, J. W. Burgon, The Last Twelve 
Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1871), heroic 
but unconvincing; Westcott and Hort’s Appendix, pp. 29 ff. ; 
F. C. Conybeare in the Hxpositor for 1893, ii. pp. 241 ff., 1894, ii. 
pp. 219 ff., 1895, ii. pp. 401 ff.; C. R. Gregory, Das Freer Logion 
(Leipzig, 1908) ; J. M. Heer in Oriens Christianus for 1912, pp. 1 ff; 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 247 


A. Bauer in Wiener Studien, xxxiv. (1912), pp. 301 ff., etc. etc. 
Other literature in the text. 


CHAPTER X 
Literature in the text. 


THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Westcott’s A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the 
New Testament during the First Four Centuries (London, 1855, and 
now in a seventh edition). This work, which has stood the test 
of criticism for two generations, only requires to be brought up 
to date to remain the standard English authority. Sanday’s 
‘Inspiration ’ (Bampton Lectures) (London, 1893) is most valuable, 
both for a general view and for details. 

Zahn’s Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons, two vols., each 
in two parts (Leipzig, 1888-92), a vast repertory of all the facts down 
to the time of Origen: it is indispensable to the advanced student. 
No less so is his Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen 
Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur (Leipzig, 1881-1907), of 
which the following eight parts have appeared: (1) ‘ Tatian’s 
Diatessaron.’ (2) ‘Der Evangeliencommentar des Theophilus von 
Antiochien ’ [on which see Sanday in Studia Biblica, vol. i. (Oxford, 
1885), pp. 89-101]. (3) ‘Supplementum Clementinum.’ (4) ‘ Die 
lateinische Apokalypse der alten afrikanischen Kirche,’ von J. 
Haussleiter; ‘Der Text des von A. Ciasca herausgegebenen 
arabischen Diatessaron, von D. E. Sellin; ‘ Analecta zur Ge- 
schichte und Literatur der Kirche im zweiten Jahrhundert.’ (5) 
‘Paralipomena’; ‘Die Apologie des Aristides untersucht und 
wiederhergestellt,’ von R. Seeberg. (6) ‘Apostel und Apostel- 
schiiler in der Provinz Asien’; ‘ Briider und Vettern Jesu.’ (7) 
‘Die altsyrische Evangelieniibersetzung und Tatian’s Diatessaron 
besonders in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhiltnis, untersucht von A. 
Hjelt. (8) ‘Die Altesten lateinischen Kommentare zum Hebrier- 
brief,’ von E. Riggenbach. 

Th. Zahn, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 
2 Aufl. (Leipzig, 1904), a supplement to his Introduction to the New 
Testament, is the cheapest and most exact, useful and up-to-date 
compendium on the subject; A. Jiilicher, Hinleitung in das N.T. 


248 TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(ed. 5-6) (Leipzig, 1906), contains a convenient summary; J. Lei- 
poldt, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig, 1907-8), 
distinguished by freshness of treatment, and particularly valuable 
where the ancient Egyptian Church and the early Reformers are 
discussed; Ἐπ Jacquier, Le Nouveau Testament dans I Eglise 
Chrétienne, tome i. ‘ Préparation, formation et définition du Canon 
du Nouveau Testament’ (Paris, 1911), a well-informed, attractive, 
up-to-date presentation. 

As regards documents connected with the subject, see the appen- 
dixes in Westcott and Zahn, both his Geschichte and his Grundriss ; 
also C. H. Turner, ‘Latin Lists of the Canonical Books,’ in the 
Journal of Theological Studies, vols. i. pp. 554 ff., ii. pp. 236 ἢ, 
xiii. pp. 77 ff., 511 ff., and E. von Dobschiitz, Das Decretum Gela- 
sianum de Inbris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis, u.s.w. (Leipzig, 
1912), for the only critical edition of the ‘ Gelasianum.’ 


There is no need to add here a bibliography arranged according 
to the chapters of this book, but certain works may be mentioned 
which are not directly cited in the text. 

Chapter IV. The most convenient and up-to-date editions of 
the ‘ Apostolic Fathers’ and other early Christian writings (ex- 
cluding the New Testament) are those in the series J'extes et Docu- 
ments pour U’Etude Historique du Christianisme, edited by H. 
Hemmer and P. Lejay, and published by Picard, Paris (1907 and 
later). The volumes are provided with introductions, complete 
translations in French, notes, and indexes. 

Chapter V. On Junilius: H. Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und 
Iunilius Afrikanus als Exegeten, u.s.w. (Freib.-i.-B., 1880). 

Chapter VI. On the canonicity of Jude and of St. Peter, see full 
details in The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter : 
Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Comments, by Joseph B. 
Mayor (London, 1907), pp. cxv-cxxiii. 

‘The Influence of St. Jerome on the Canon of the Western 
Church,’ by Sir Henry H. Howorth in the Journal of Theological 
Studies, vols. x. (1908-9), pp. 481 ff., xi. (1909-10), pp. 321 ff., xiii. 
(1911-12), pp. 1 ff. 

Chapter VIII. The following articles by Sir Henry H. Howorth 
in the Journal of Theological Studies: ‘The Origin and Authority 
of the Biblical Canon according to the Continental Reformers,’ 
vol. viii. (1906-7), pp. 321 ff., ix. (1907-8), pp. 188 ff.; ‘ The Canon 
of the Bible among the Later Reformers,’ vol. x. (1908-9), pp. 183 ff. ; 
‘The Origin and Authority of the Biblical Canon in the Anglican 
Church,’ vol. viii. (1906-7), pp. 1 ff. 


INDEX 


ABYSSINIAN VERSION. See Ethiopic. 

Accents, 7. 

Acts of Andrew, 186. 

—— of the Apostles, 7, 12, 158, 166. 

—— of Jobn, 167, 186. 

—— of Judas Thomas, 92. 

— of Paul, 78. 

—— of Peter, 167. 

—— of Scillitan Martyrs, 35. 

Addai, doctrine of, 225 f. 

Ado, 26. 

* Africa,’ 95. 

‘ African’ Canon, 192. 

‘African’ MSS., 36 ff., 43, 45, 47. 

Alcuin, 51. 

Alexandrian MSS., 122 ff. 

Alfric, 193. 

Alter, 100. 

Ambrose, 88 f., 190. 

‘ Ambrosiaster,’ the, 42, 44 f., 47, 50, 
88 f., 187 n., 148, 190 ff. 

Andreas of Cappadocia, 137, 188. 

Antioch, 58, etc. 

Aphraates, 59, 92 f., 183. 

Apocalypse, 12, 15, 60 f., 85, 153, 
166, 182, 185 ff. 

‘ Apocrypha,’ 158. 

‘ Apostolic’ canons, 81. 

Arabic versions, 73 ff., 110. 

Aristion, 72. 

Armenian versions, 60, 63, 71 ff., 74, 
109, 145. 

Articles of Church of England, 203. 

Assyrian Church canon, 183 ff. (see 
Documents) ; Nestorian, 188. See 
Syriac. 

Athanasius, 84, 135 f., 155, 187. 


Augustine, 38 f., 45 f., 50f., 78, 81, 
88 ff., 145, 191 f. 
Aurelius of Cillani, 192. 


‘BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF,’ 22, 76, 
176, 179, 183. 

Bar Salibi, 79. 

Basil of Caesarea, 30, 84, 133. 

Basmuric version. See Fayyumic. 

Bede, viii, 29, 85, 91 ἢ, 

Benedictine Order, 9. 

Bengel, 99. 

Bensly, 128. 

Bentley, 98 f. 

Berger, 128. 

Beza’s editions, 96. 

Bilinguals, 14. 

Bindings, 8. 

Birch, 100. 

Bobbio, 37, 437., 90. 

Bohairic version, 65 ff. i124, 136f., 145. 

Boniface, 29, 53. 

Books, their material, 5, 

Bousset, 127 f. 

Bowyer, 99. 

Breathings, 7. 

Buchanan, 107, 1447”, 

Budge, 108. 

Burchard, 29. 

Burgon, 102. 

Burkitt, 108, 128 f, 

Burn, 129. 

Buttmann, 101. 


CaIETANUS, 200. 
Calvin, 202. 
Canon, 149 ff. 
249 


250 TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Carthage, Council of, 220 f. 

Cassian, 191 f. 

Cassiodorus, 3, 51, 54, 90 f., 193. 

Chapters, 11. 

Charlemagne, 197. 

Chromatius of Aquileia, 46. 

‘Chrysostom,’ John, 60, 69, 85, 100, 
118, 133, 186, 186. 

Citations, Patristic, 15 ff., 76 ff., 145. 

Clement of Alexandria, 61, 67, 81, 83, 
87, 173. 

Clement viml., Pope, 52, 106. 

Clement, Letters of, 24, 34, 76,179 f. 
See Pseudo-Clement. 

‘Clementine ’ Homilies, 78. 

Colossians, Epistle to, 153. 

Columns, 7. 

Commentators, Patristic, 16f., 92, 
148 f. 

Commodian, 87 n. 

Complutensian Polyglot, 94 f. 

Constantinople, 60, 69, 72, 84 f., etc. 

Conybeare, 109 f. 

Coptic version, see Bohairic; ver- 
sions, see Egyptian. 

Corinthians, First Epistle to, 153; 
Second Epistle to, 158; ‘ Third’ 
Epistle to, 72, 181, 188 f. 

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 21, 85. 

Councils, 195 ff. ; Laodicea, 195 f. ; 
so-called Damasine, viii, 196, 218, 
229f.; Carthage, 196f., 220f.; 
Trent, 197, 236 f. 

Cronert, 142. 

Crum, 109. 

Cursive writing, 5. 

Cyprian, 36 ff., 78, 87, 90, 177. 

Cyril of Alexandria, 21, 84, 124, 
135 f. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 134, 136, 186. 


Damasus, 48 f., 88 ; so-called Council 
of, a fiction, viii, 218. 

Denk, 107. 

Diatessaron, Tatian’s, 53 ff., 59 f., 
77ff., 82, 92f., 135, 161, 169f., 
177, 183. 

Didache, 22, 76, 78, 183, 186 f. 


Didymus, 135. 

Diodorus, 118. 

Dittography, 114. 

Dobschiitz, E. von, viii, 218, 229 f. 

Donatists, 36; Donatist prologues, 
52. 

Donatus, grammarian, 48. 


EDITIONS, printed: Greek, 94 ff. ; Latin, 
105 ff; Syriac, 108; Egyptian, 
108 f.; Gothic, 109; Armenian, 
109; Ethiopic, 109 f.; Georgian, 
110; Arabic, 110. 

Egyptian canon, 187; ‘symptoms,’ 
21, 23; versions, 21, 64 ff., 73, 
108 f. 

Elzevir editions, 96 f. 

Enoch, Book of, 204f. 

Ephesians, Epistle to, 153, 166. 

Ephraim, 25, 55, 59, 78, 98, 129, 
183. 

Epiphanius, 77, 79, 136. 

Epistles: collections of, 163 ff., 
188 ; order of, 12, 164 f., 188. 

Erasmus’ editions, 95. 

Errors in MSS., 2 ff., 112 ff. 

Estienne. See Stephanus. 

Ethiopic version, 30, 73, 109 ἢ, 
145. 

Eucherius, 228 f. 

European texts, 40 ff., 56, 76. 

Eusebius of Caesarea, 11, 22 ff., 79, 
84, 122, 184, 136, 186; Eusebian 
‘canons,’ 48 f., 52, 1&5. 

Eusebius of Vercelli, 40 f. 

Euthalius (Evagrius), 12, 30. 

Evagrius. See Euthalius. 


FAMILIES OF MSS., 115 ff. 

Fathers, 15 ff., 122. 

Faustinus, 191. 

Fayyumic version, 65 f., 69. 

Fell’s edition, 97. 

Ferrar group of MSS., 31 f. 

Filaster, 191 f. 

Firmicus Maternus, 87 n. 

Freer (Washington) MS., 31, 67 n., 
127. 


INDEX 


Fretelas, 44, 70. 
Fulgentius of Ruspe, 90. 


GABELENTZ, 109. 

Galatians, Epistle to, 153. 

Gardthausen, 111. 

Gaselee, 109. 

Gasquet, 107. 

Gelasianum Decretum, 
viii, 229 f. 

Georgian version, 74, 110. 

Glaue, 109. 

Glosses, 114. 

Gospels, 11, 14, 160 ff. 

Gospel of ‘ Peter,’ 167. 
see under names. 

Gothic version, 43 f., 69 f., 109. 

Greek language, 33 ff. 

Gregory of Elvira, 45, 88. 

Gregory the Great, 50, 85, 91, 193. 

Gregory of Nazianzus, 30, 84, 133. 

Gregory of Nyssa, 30, 84, 133. 

Griesbach, 100. 

Grotius, 203. 

Gutenberg, 52, 105 f. 

Gwilliam, 108. 

Gwynn, 108. 


so-called, 


For others 


HaPLoGRaAPHY, 114. 

Harclean revision, 61 f., 136. 

Harnack, 15, 160. 

Harris, 128, 130. 

Harwood, 99. 

Hebrews, Epistle to the, 12, 14, 153, 
177, 183, 190 f. ; Gospel according 
to, 183, 186. 

Heer, 128. 

Helbing, 142. 

Henten, 106. 

Hermas, Shepherd of, 22, 76, 166, 
176, 180, 183, 186 f, 

Hesychius, 21, 133. 

Hilary of Poitiers, 78, 87 f., 190 f. 

Hill, Hamlyn, 108. 

Hippolytus, 34, 82, 137. 

Hogg, H. W., 108. 

Homeceoarcton, 114. 


251 


Homoeoteleuton, 114. 
Horner, 108 f. 

Hort, 103 ff., 117 ff., 138 ff. 
Hoskier, 127 f. 


IBERIAN. See Georgian. 

Ignatius, 76. 

Independent churches, 203 f. 

Innocent, Pope, 227. 

Irenaeus, 26, 34, 78 ff., 83, 103, 
170 ff. 

Irish MSS., 38. 

Isaac, converted Jew, 88. 

Isho‘dad of Merv, 78 f. 

Isidore, 191. 


JAMES, Epistle of, 45f., 48 ff., 153, 
176, 183, 185 f., 188, 191 f. 

Jerome, 23, 34, 41, 44, 47, 61, 71, 
88 f., 145, 191 f. See Vulgate. 

John, Acts of, 167. 

—— First Epistle of, 153, 185; 
Second and Third Epistles of, 6, 
60 f., 85, 153, 175 f., 183, 185 f., 
192. 

— Gospel of, 153. 

—— of Damascus, 85. 

Jude, Epistle of, 60 f., 85, 153, 176, 
183, 185 f., 192. 

Julian of Aeclanum, 19], 

Junilius, 188. 

Justin, 77 ff., 167 f. 


KaRistTapT, 201 ἢ, 


LACHMANN, 101. 

Lactantius, 87 n. 

Lagarde, Paul de, 110. 

Lake, 127, 130. 

Langton, 52. 

Laodicea, Council of, 195 f. 

‘ Laodicenes, Epistle to,’ 193. 

Latin versions, 33 ff., 76 #., 91, 
105 ff., 137. 

Latin writers, 85 ff. 

Lectionaries, 18, 


252 TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Leipoldt, 109. 

Leontius, 188, 

Leucius, 167. 

Lewis, A. S., 108, 128. 

Loebe, 109. 

Lucas of Bruges, 97. 

Lucian of Antioch, 124, 188, 185. 

Lucifer of Cagliari, 28, 41 f., 44 f., 
δ. ἢ 19h Ὲ 

Luke, Gospel of, 7, 153. 

Luther, 200 f. 


Mack, 99. 

Manuscripts, Greek, 11 ff., 16, 19 ff. 

Marcion and Marcionite prologues, 
12, 52, 59 f., 76 f., 137, 161, 165 f., 
184, 

Mark, Gospel of, 153. 

Martianay, 107. 

Matthaei, 100. 

Matthew, Gospel of, 153. 

Matthias, Gospel of, 186. 

Mayser, 142. 

Mazarin Bible, 105 ἢ, 

Memphitic version, See Bohairic. 

Methodius, 122. 

Mill, 98. 

Miller, 102. 

Minuscule writing, 5. 

Moses Bar Kepha, 79. 

Moulton, J. H., 142, 151. 

Muratorian Canon, 208 ff. 


NEMESIANUS of Tubunas, 36, 87. 
Nestle, 103 n., 104, 106. 

Niceta of Remesiana, 42, 44. 
Nonconformist churches, 203 f. 
Non-Interpolations, Western, 139 ff. 
Novatian, 40 f., 87, 177. 


OECOLAMPADIUvS, 202. 

Optatus, 192. 

Order of Books, 11, 14. See Epistles. 

Origen, 17 f., 21, 23, 63, 81 ff., 87, 
89, 122, 124, 133 ff., 187, 174 ff., 
182 f. 

Orthography, 141 f, 


PAcIAN, 191. 

Paleography, 4. 

Palestinian Syriac version, 62 f. 

Palimpsest, 25. 

Palmer, E., 104. 

Palut, 58. 

Pamphilus, 23, 30, 84, 134. 

Paper, 5, 9. 

Papyrus and papyri, 5 ff., 19 ἢ 

Parablepsia, 114. 

Paragraph, 7. 

Parchment, 5. See Vellum. 

Patrick, 90. 

Paul (see Epistles): Acts of, 181, 
186. 

Paulinus of Nola, 191. 

Pelagius, 51, 89 ff., 191 f. 

Peshitta revision, 56, 58 f., 60 ff., 74, 
136. 

Peter, Acts of, 167; Apocalypse of, 
180 f., 186; First Epistle of, 153, 
185; Second Epistle of, 39, 60 f., 
85, 158, 176, 183, 185 f., 192; 
Gospel of, 167, 186. 

Peter of Laodicea, 63. 

Philemon, Epistle to, 6, 72, 153, 
184, 

Philippians, Epistle to, 153. 

Philoxenian Syriac version, 61, 108, 
128, 187, 185, 188. 

Photography, 4. 

Pius 'x., 52. 


Platt, 110. 
Polycarp, 76, 79. 
Polyglot, Complutensian, 94f., 


London, 97. 
Prefaces, 11. 
Presbyterian churches, 208 f. 
Primasius, 39, 51, 88, 90; so-called 
(=Cassiodorus), 3, 90 f. See 
Cassiodorus. 
Principles of Criticism, 111 fi. 
Priscillian, 46 f., 52, 88, 155, 191 f. 
Promissionibus, Auctor de, 38. 
Psalms ‘ of Solomon,’ 24. 
Pseudo-Clement, 181. 
Purple MSS., 9, 30 f., 133 f. 
Pusey, P. E., 108. 


INDEX 


QUATERNION, 8. 
Quotations. See Citations. 


RABBULA, 60, 185. 

Radermacher, 142. 

Reformation, the, and the Canon, 
198 ff. 

Roman canon, a, 223 ff. 

Romans, Epistle to the, 34, 153, 
108... 

Rufinus, 82 π., 190. 


SABATIER, 107. 

Sahidic version, 21, 30, 65 ff., 136, 
145, 187 n. 

Sanday, 105, 107, 130, 153, 

Sayings of Jesus, 151. 

Schaaf, 108. 

Schmiedel, 141. 

Scholz, 100. 

Scribes, 9. 

‘Scripture,’ 158, 

Scrivener, 102. 

Sense-lines, 14. 

Septuagint, 65, 71, 150 f. 

Serapion (of Antioch), 58. 

Sheets, 8. 

Simon, 97. 

Sixtus v., 52, 106. 

Sixtus Senensis, 200. 

Skeat, 109. 

Soden, Hermann von, 105, 117 f., 
130 ff., 142, 144 f. 

Souter, 105. 

‘Spanish ’ texts, 45 f. 

Speculum, 46, 191 ff. 

Stephanus: Greek editions, 96 ; Latin 
editions, 106. 

Streitberg, 109, 

Sunnias, 44. 

Swete, 129. 

Synoptic tradition, 153. 

Syriac canon, 226. 

Syriac versions, 54 ff., 108; Old- 
Syriac version, 56 ft., 71 ff., 76 ff, 
92, 127, 141, 177. 

Syrian readings, 118 ff. 


253 


TATIAN. See Diatessaron. 

Tertullian, 35, 39, 77, 86 f., 157, 
173 f., 192. 

‘Testament,’ 156 f. 

Textual criticism, 3 f., 111 ff, 

Thackeray, F. St. J., 142. 

Thebaic version. See Sahidic. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 78, 1.8, 
187 f., 232. 

Theodoret of Cyrus, 85, 136. 

Theodulf of Orléans, 51. 

Thessalonians, Epistles to, 14, 158 ; 
Second Epistle to, 12. 

Thomas, Gospel of, 186. 

Timothy, Epistles to, 153. 

Tindale, 71. 

Tischendorf, 102, 

Titus, Epistle to, 153. 

Translations, 10, 13 ff., 16, 33 ff., 75; 
of patristic works, 17 f. 

Tregelles, 102. 

Trent, Council of, 197, 236 f. 

Turner, 130. 

Tyconius, 39, 90, 


ULFILAS, 69, 145. 
Uncial writing, 5, 7. 


VaLua, Laurentius, 95. 

Vellum and Vellum MSS., 5, 8, 20 ff., 
25. See Parchment. 

Versions. See Translations. 

Victorinus, Marius (Afer), 137 x., 
191. 

Victorinus of Pettau, 90. 

Vulgate, 41 f., 44, 47 ff., 77, 81, 88, 
91, 105 ff. See Jerome. 


WALKER, John, 99. 

Walton. See Polyglot. 
Weinberger, 111. 

Weiss, B., 103 ., 127 f. 
Westcott, 103 ff., 117 ff., 138 fi. 
Western texts, 118 ff. 
Westminster Confession, 203. 
Wettstein, 99. 

Weymouth, 104. 


254 TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 


White, H. J., 106 f., 128, 145. Writing, styles of, 5 ff. 
White, Joseph, 108. Wycliffe, 71. 
Widmanstadt, 108. 

Winstedt, 129. ZENO OF VERONA, 87 π., 


Wordsworth, John, 106 f., 128, | Zohrab, 109. 
148. Zwingli, 202. 


Studies in Theology 


A New Series of Hand-books, being aids to interpretation 
in Biblical Criticism for the use of Ministers, 
Theological Students and general readers. 


12mo, cloth. 75 cents net per volume. 


HE aim of the series is described by the general title. 

It is an attempt to bring all the resources of modern 

learning to the interpretation of the Scriptures, and 

to place within the reach of all who are interested 

the broad conclusions arrived at by men of distinction in the 

world of Christian scholarship on the great problems of Faith 

and Destiny. The volumes are critical and constructive, and 

their value can scarcely be overstated. Each volume will 

contain bibliographies for the guidance of those who wish to 
pursue more extended studies. 

The writers selected for the various volumes are represen- 
tative scholars both in this country andin Europe. Each of 
them has been assigned a subject with which he is particularly 
qualified to deal, as will be at once apparent even in this 
preliminary announcement giving a list of some of the vol- 
umes in preparation. 


ARRANGEMENT OF VOLUMES 


A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
By ARTHUR SAMUEL PEAKE, D.D., Professor of Biblical Exegesis 
and Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Victoria University, Man- 
chester. Sometime Fellow of Merton College, Oxford. Author of 
“A Guide to Biblical Study,” “‘ The Problem of Suffering in the 
Old Testament,” etc. [Ready. 


FAITH AND ITS PSYCHOLOGY. By the Rev. Wrtram R. Inex, 
D.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, and 
Bampton Lecturer, Oxford, 1899. Author of “Studies of the 
English Mystics,” ‘‘ Truth and Falsehood in Religion,” ‘‘ Personal 
Idealism and Mysticism,” etc. [ Ready. 


PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION. By the Rev. Hastinas Rasu- 
DALL, D.Litt. (Oxon.), D.C.L. (Dunelm), F.B.A. Fellow and 
Tutor of New College, Oxford. Author of ‘‘ The Theory of Good 
and Evil,” etc., etc. [ Roady. 


REVELATION AND INSPIRATION. By the Rev. James Orr, 
D.D., Professor of Apologetics in the Theological College of the 
United Free Church, Glasgow. Author of “The Christian View 
of God and the World,” “The Ritschlian Theology and Evangelical 
Faith,” “‘The Problem of the Old Testament,” etc. [Ready. 


CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS. By the Rev. Wr1- 
IAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D., F.B.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge. Hon. Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. 
Archdeacon of Ely. Formerly Lecturer on Economic History to 
Harvard University. Author of ‘Growth of English History and 
Commerce,” etc. [Ready. 


CHRISTIAN THOUGHT TO THE REFORMATION. By 
HERBERT B. WorKMAN, D.Litt., Principal of the Westminster Train- 
ing College. Author of ‘The Church of the West in the Middle 
Ages,” “‘The Dawn of the Reformation,” etc. [Ready. 


PROTESTANT THOUGHT BEFORE KANT. By A. C. 
McGrrFert, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Church History in the 
Union Theological Seminary, New York. Author of “The His- 
tory of Christianity in the Apostolic Age” and “The Apostles’ 
Creed.” [Ready. 


THE CHRISTIAN HOPE: A STUDY IN THE DOCTRINE 
OFIMMORTALITY. By Wittram Apams Brown, Ph.D., D.D., 
Professor of Systematic Theology in the Union Theological Semi- 
nary, New York. Author of “The Essence of Christianity” and 
“Christian Theology in Outline.” [Ready. 


HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT SINCE KANT. By 
the Rev. Epwarp CALDWELL Moore, D.D., Parkman Professor of 
Theology in Harvard University. Author of ‘The New Testa- 
ment in the Christian Church,” etc. [Ready. 


THE THEOLOGY OF THE GOSPELS. By the Rev. James 
Morratt, D.D., D.Litt., Yates Professor of New Testament Greek 
and Exegesis, Mansfield College, Oxford. [Ready. 


THE TEXT AND CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By 
ALEXANDER SOUTER, D.Litt. [Ready. 


Other volumes are in preparation and will be announced later. 


CHARLES SCRIBNER J S550 N'5 


᾿ ie 
1 hs ip i 


ese | 
ve 
ACA eh 
ptt a | 
i Suet 3) 7 ; ‘ 
4 ἀπ νη BG ἥ 
ΓᾺ ἘΝ ᾿ 
\ ἰ ν ONG 


a 


᾿ PAR afar Ge pt ἢ 
ἀν νὴ ΤΩΝ reat Pat 4 

᾿ ᾿ i 1 ΟῚ i 

ὴ Ag eae ὶ Ni Vind 


! 1 
me) ἵ 


" ΜΝ] 


ΝΟ, 
44 bord kis ‘ 


Ve bees 
4 A Whe 
Ὺ δὴ 


RETURN TO the circulation desk of any ao 
University of California Library 

or to the EY 
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY | 

Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 


University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 


ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
e 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
(510) 642-6753 
e 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
books to NRLF 
e Renewals and recharges may be made 
4 days prior to due date 


DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
SENT ON ILL 


MAY 21 2004 
J. C. BERKELEY 


D20 15M 4-02 


feels 


; " ἣν = ᾿ ζ 
ἦεν ᾿ Ξ ΒΥ ον» ᾿ 7 é 
eee \ : ; aa + ae ᾿ ᾿ : Η ; 
7 ahs ‘4 - Η ᾿ 
eS Ἂ ᾿ 5 ee ΕΣ 
ὅς = : ἥ ὃ ; é 
ov - * ὃ ἣν Ὁ τὸ ἐν Η a 
ἊΝ a γε - . ΗΝ 1 


ABS ti se a ee 


+ . 


ee Susag ey ay a ms wee ea 


ae ee ες = 
TS eS Rees SE, 
ms ΕΝ " - => 


. 4 
“os - . - 


